title: Case C-61/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2009 — Landkreis Bad Dürkheim v Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion, interested party: Frau Astrid Niedermair-Schiemann

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2009 — Landkreis Bad Dürkheim v Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion, interested party: Frau Astrid Niedermair-Schiemann
   (Case C-61/09)
   2009/C 113/40
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landkreis Bad Dürkheim

      Defendant: Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion

      Interested party: Frau Astrid Niedermair-Schiemann

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there also an ‘agricultural area’ in the sense of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) if that area is admittedly also used for agricultural purposes (grazing for sheep farming purposes) but the overriding objective is to achieve the aims of landscape management and nature conservation?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
               Is an area used for non-agricultural activities in the sense of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 if the overriding purpose of the activity is nature conservation or in any case if the farmer is subject to the instructions of the nature conservation authority when fulfilling nature conservation objectives?

               3.

               If there is an agricultural area (Question 1), which is also used for an agricultural activity (Question 2):
               Does the allocation of an agricultural area to a holding (agricultural area of the holding in the sense of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003) require:

                           (a)

                           that it be at the disposal of the holding against payment on the basis of a lease or another similar temporary transaction?

                           (b)

                           If (a) is to be answered in the negative: is it without prejudice to the allocation to the holding if occupation of the areas is allowed, without charge or in return only for taking over the contributions to the trade association, for use of a specific nature and for a limited period of time in accordance with the objectives of nature conservation?

                           (c)

                           If (a) is to be answered in the affirmative: is it without prejudice to the allocation to the holding if the holding is obliged to carry out certain tasks on the land in return for payment?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).


title: Case T-338/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — UNIC v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/41

         Action brought on 19 May 2014 — UNIC v Commission
   (Case T-338/14)
   2014/C 212/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer, and M. Bottino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the European Commission’s decision of 19 March 2014 rejecting the request for initiation of a withdrawal procedure in respect of the preferential tariff arrangements granted to India, Pakistan and Ethiopia with regard to the raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods referred to in Sections S-8a, S-8b and S-12a of [the GSP Sections, as set out in Annex V to] Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ 2012 L 303, p. 1).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the right to good administration as described in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a failure to verify whether the conditions listed in Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012 for initiating the procedure for withdrawing generalised tariff preferences have been satisfied.


title: Case T-80/11: Action brought on 9 February 2011 — Nath Kalsi v OHIM — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/26

         Action brought on 9 February 2011 — Nath Kalsi v OHIM — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD)
   (Case T-80/11)
   2011/C 103/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi (Agra, India) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: American Clothing Associates NV (Evergem, Belgium)

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2010 in Case R 599/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative marks containing the word element ‘RIDGE WOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 24 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: American Clothing Associates NV.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘RIVER WOODS’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘RIVER WOODS’ und ‘River Woods’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 40.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue; Infringement of Article 15(1) und Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on account of failure to prove use of the earlier marks, and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the facts presented by American Clothing Associates were insufficient to establish a reputation within the meaning of this Article.

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


title: Case T-506/10: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — RTI and Elettronica Industriale v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/23

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — RTI and Elettronica Industriale v Commission
   (Case T-506/10) (1)

   2012/C 273/41
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Action brought on 21 December 1995 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-399/95)

text:
 16 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 77/5
 1 . In a case of temporary importation of certain means of             European Communities in Case T-302/94 between
      transport for private use within the Community, within            Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European
      the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      83/182/EEC ( 1 ) of 28 March 1983 , is the exemption              European Communities on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios
      from taxes granted for a single private vehicle or for            Coussios, represented by Georges Sakellaropoulos and
      more than one ? Does the above Directive in fact                  residing at 3rd September Street, Athens .
      introduce a distinction between the number of private
      vehicles that it is possible to import temporarily on a           The appellant claims that the Court should:
      tax-exempt basis according to whether they are
      intended for private use or business use ?
                                                                        — declare the appeal admissible,
2. Is a specific obligation laid down in the Directive to the           — set aside jhe order of the Court of First Instance of
      effect that the competent Greek authorities should not                  11 October 1995 ('),
      restrict by legislation the parallel or simultaneous
      temporary importation tax-exempt of more than one                 — declare the application lodged on 28 September 1994 ( in
      private vehicle for private use by the same person ? Is it              Case T-302/94 ( 2 ) admissible,
      possible for an individual to rely on the provisions of
      Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 83/182/EEC against the
      authorities before a national court, claiming that the           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      rules contained in a provision of law are incompatible
      with those Articles ?                                             Pleas in law and main arguments:
3 . Is it compatible with the purpose and terms of the                  Infringement of Community law:
      Directive in question for the national legislature to
      provide that in a case of infringement of certain                — as regards the plea concerning the principle of sound
      provisions of a ministerial decision ( such as Article 8 ( 4 ),         administration :         the    Court  of First Instance had
      which does not allow the importation of a second means                  previously held that plea to be well founded in Case
      of transport by the same person ) adopted in order to                   T-68/92 ( 3 ), and could not legitimately consider that the
      bring national law into line with the provisions of the                 award to the applicant of ECU 2 000 extinguished the
      Directive, the applicable duties and other taxes, as well               plea ,
      as additional duty of the same amount, are payable
      immediately, in as much as it is shown that the                  — as regards the application of the principle of
      importation of a private vehicle is temporary and not                   proportionality,
      definitive ?
                                                                       — as regards the applicant's legal interest in bringing
4 . Is it compatible with the Community principle of                          proceedings : although the applicant's name did not
      proportionality for it to be provided that in the above                 appear on the list of suitable candidates in the open
      case additional duties equal to 100 % of the applicable                 competition, he at all times reserved his position
      duties and other taxes should be levied, regardless of the             concerning his participation in that competition.
      period that the second private vehicle remained in
      Greece ?                                                         ( ] ) Order of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94 ( OJ No C 353 ,
                                                                             9 . 12 . 1995 , p . 14 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994, p . 14 .
(') Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax
                                                                       ( 3 ) Judgment of 23 February 1994 ( OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 ,
     exemptions within the Community for certain means of                    p. 15 ).
     transport temporarily imported into one Member State from
     another ( OJ No L 105 , 1983 , p. 59 ).
                                                                       Action brought on 21 December 1995 by the Federal
Appeal brought on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios                        Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
Coussios against the order made on 11 October 1995 by the                                        European Communities
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                                                   ( Case C-3 99/95 )
European Communities in Case T-302/94 between
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/11 )
Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                       ( Case C-397/95 P)                              An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 77/ 10 )
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 1995 by the
                                                                       Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst
An appeal against the order made on 11 October 1995 by                 Roder, Ministerialrat, Federal Ministry of Economic
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Affairs, D-53107 Bonn.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               intended to be set off subsequently, in the course of the
                                                                           sale of the NMH shares to Max Aicher, against the
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 18 October                   planned loss compensation by the State of Bavaria . Since
    1995 concerning a State aid by the Federal State of                    the privatization of the NMH shares provided for in
    Bavaria     to    the  EGKS-Stahlunternehmen           Neue            accordance with the contracts between the State of
    Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg —                        Bavaria and Aicher is economically plausible, the grant
    K ( 95 ) 2828 final; and                                               of the disputed loans to NMH is also economically
                                                                           sensible . The waiver by the State of Bavaria of the loan in
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 the amount of DM 48 895 million was ultimately an
                                                                           integral part of the measures to privatize NMH .
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                           Logically, the loan transactions between the State of
                                                                           Bavaria and NMH cannot be characterized as aid, if the
— Breach of essential procedural requirements ( obligation                 assumption of losses by the State of Bavaria upon the
    under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty to state the reasons               privatization of its NMH shares is unobjectionable
    on which a decision is based ):                                        under State aids law .
    — overall basis of the decision is the fact that the                   The Commission also breaches Article 83 of the ECSC
        shareholder loans made by the Federal State of                     Treaty, if from the outset it denies the State of Bavaria
        Bavaria are alleged to be in the nature of capital                 the right to sell a loss-making subsidiary and to assume
        replacements,                                                      part of its losses when so doing. That provision
                                                                           guarantees the right of public authorities to take part in
    — sweeping assertion that repayment could not be, and                  economic life and prohibits discrimination against the
        was not, expected to be made,                                      economic activity of public undertakings .
    — blanket refusal to refrain from adopting the                   — Breach of the principle of good faith : The Commission
        contested decision on the ground that it would                     should have delayed the contested decision until it had
        anticipate the outcome of Cases C-158/95 (') and                   been established whether the plan for the privatization
        T-129/95 ( 2 ).                                                    of the shares held by the State of Bavaria was permissible
                                                                           under Community law ( pending Cases C-158/95 and
— Incorrect application of Articles 4 (c ) and 83 of the                   T-129/95 ).
    ECSC Treaty: The loans granted by the State of Bavaria
    are not to be classified as aids, but as an act of a             (M OJ No C 362 , 1995 , p . 57 .
    shareholder which a private investor in a comparable             ( 2 ) OJ No C 229 , 1995 , p . 21 .
    situation would also reasonably have performed. The
    fact that there was and is a real prospect of the loan being
    repaid is shown by the fact that the productive situation
    of the company has stabilized and profits can be
    expected in the future . Although the State of Bavaria
    nevertheless subsequently decided not to demand                  Action brought on 5 January 1996 by the Commission of
    repayment of the loan, that was exclusively in order to          the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
    set it off, upon the sale of its shares, against the loss                                      Netherlands
    compensation by the State of Bavaria provided for in the                                     ( Case C-3/96
    privatization agreements. The set-off of the loans upon
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/ 12 )
    the sale of the shares was wholly appropriate and
    reasonable in economic terms, because it enabled the
    State of Bavaria to reorganize its policy towards                An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
    combines and to protect its entrepreneurial image .              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     Communities on 5 January 1996 by the Commission of the
    In any event, having regard to the principle of                  European Communities, represented by W. Wils, of its Legal
    proportionality, the Commission should not have                  Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
    claimed that the loan be repaid, but only that it be             Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its
    modified in such a way as to require repayment                   Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    irrespective of whether profits were expected.
                                                                     The Commission claims that the Court should :
    The Commission wrongly compares the conduct of the
    State of Bavaria with that of the private, minority               1 . declare that, by not designating sufficient special
    shareholders in assuming that the latter find themselves                protection areas within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
    in a comparable situation . Their financial possibilities,              Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
    interests and entrepreneurial aims were, however,                       conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the
    different; in particular, they had no influence over the                Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
    future business orientation of the Maxhiitte group. The                 Directive and under Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty;
    loans granted by the State of Bavaria were in any event                 and
    sensible in entrepreneurial terms, because they were
    intended to enable the privatization of Neue Maxhiitte            2 . order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
    ( NMH ). The claims arising out of the loans granted were               costs .


               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/1

         2009/C 153/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

      OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

      OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

      OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

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


title: Case T-181/01: Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors against the European Parliament

text:
27.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 303/19
Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors                      The applicant requests that the contested decisions be annulled,
               against the European Parliament                          alleging:
                                                                        —     failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons;
                        (Case T-181/01)
                                                                        —     manifest error of assessment and breach of the interest of
                                                                              the service and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                        (2001/C 303/32)                                       Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                              munities (CEOS), in that there is no concrete, objective
                                                                              and relevant factor to justify the contested decisions;
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        —     breach of Articles 29 and 30 of the Staff Regulations, the
                                                                              vacancy notice, and the legal maxim patere legem quam
                                                                              ipse fecisti, in that the procedure currently applicable to
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                  recruitment of staff in the political groups was not
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    complied with in the present case;
6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors resident in Brussels,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                              —     infringement of the principle of equality between men
                                                                              and women, in that, first, the applicant was discriminated
                                                                              against because she was pregnant, and, second, the
                                                                              principle according to which, all things being equal,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   preference should be given to the recruitment of a female
                                                                              official or member of staff (affirmative action), was not
                                                                              observed, in so far as the candidate appointed to the
—     annul the decision taken by the AHCCE, on a date                        position, who was not even on an equal footing with the
      unknown, to appoint another candidate to the post of                    applicant, is a man;
      administrator with the PPE-DE Group of the European
      Parliament and the decision of unknown date not to                —     breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff.
      accept her application for that post and, in so far as
      necessary, annul the decision to reject the applicant’s
      complaint taken on 28 May 2001;                                   Regarding the claim for damages, the applicant states that, as
                                                                        a result of the contested decisions, she has suffered material
—     order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and                 and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
      equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;            she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
                                                                        staff and was consequently denied the benefits of the pecuniary
                                                                        rights connected with recruitment as a member of the
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                         temporary staff and of all the rights and interests in terms of
                                                                        career in the Community civil service. The applicant also
                                                                        suffered non-material damage consisting in the total lack of
                                                                        openness and in the defendant’s refusal to provide her with
                                                                        the reasons for its decisions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant states that, following the vacancy notice publi-
shed on 10 June 2000, for the recruitment of a temporary
agent for the post of administrator or assistant administrator
of Dutch mother tongue in the European Parliament’s Group               Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.
of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and                  against the Commission of the European Communities
European Democrats, she applied for that post. At the end of
the recruitment procedure, she was informed that she had
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the                                    (Case T-184/01)
candidate listed in third position had been appointed to the
post in question. The applicant lodged a complaint against                                        (2001/C 303/33)
those decisions (the decision not to appoint her and the
decision to appoint another candidate). The president of the
PPE-DE Group rejected that complaint, indicating that it is for                              (Language of the case: English)
the competent authority to choose from the list drawn up by
the selection board the candidate to be appointed to the vacant
position and that that authority is not obliged to observe the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
order of the list of suitable candidates drawn up in order of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
merit.                                                                  European Communities on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.,


title: Case T-74/14: Action brought on 31 January 2014  — France v Commission

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/44

         Action brought on 31 January 2014 — France v Commission
   (Case T-74/14)
   2014/C 135/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety European Commission Decision No C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid No SA.16237 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 by which the Commission found that, first, the balance of the restructuring aid, notified by the French authorities on 18 February 2002, in the amount of EUR 15,81 million and, secondly, the three measures implemented by the French authorities in 2006 in favour of Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (‘SNCM’), namely, the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million, the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million subscribed for Compagnie générale maritime et financière (‘CGMF’) and the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million, constitute State aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market. The Commission consequently ordered recovery of those amounts.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence as the Commission refused to reopen the formal investigation procedure following the judgment delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v Commission [2012] ECR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of the concept of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU as the Commission found that the 2006 measures were to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision. This plea is divided into three parts. The applicant takes the view that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:

                           —

                           inasmuch as it found that the disposal of 75% of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million had to be classified as State aid and that the private investor test was not satisfied in the present case;

                           —

                           inasmuch as it found that the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million had to be classified as State aid; and

                           —

                           inasmuch as it found that the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million in favour of SNCM employees had to be classified as State aid for the purposes of that provision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, should the Court hold that the Commission acted correctly in not reopening the formal investigation procedure following the judgment in Case T-565/08, infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission found that the capital contribution of EUR 15,81 million notified in 2002 for restructuring aid had to be classified as State aid incompatible with the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons.


title: Case C-77/06: Action brought on  9 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/13

         Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-77/06)
   (2006/C 74/25)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for the implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 197 of 21.7.2001, p. 30.


title: Case F-88/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/19

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-88/12)
   2012/C 319/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 16 January 2012 concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Commission;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 15 June 2012 requesting application of the General Implementing Provisions and the actuarial rates in force at the time of his request to transfer his pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-77/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Deutsche Post AG v European Commission, UPS Europe NV/SA, UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Appeal — State aid — Commission decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC — Action for annulment — Measure against which action for annulment may be brought — Measures intended to have binding legal effects — Earlier decision to initiate on the same measures)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Deutsche Post AG v European Commission, UPS Europe NV/SA, UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG
   (Case C-77/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Commission decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Action for annulment - Measure against which action for annulment may be brought - Measures intended to have binding legal effects - Earlier decision to initiate on the same measures)
   2013/C 367/08
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), UPS Europe NV/SA, UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, advocaten)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Deutsche Post AG (aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07)) — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to an effective legal remedy — Misinterpretation of the right to sound administration as well as the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Inadequate statement of reasons in the General Court’s judgment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-103/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Sala Social (Spain) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jessica Porras Guisado v Bankia, S.A. and Others

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Sala Social (Spain) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jessica Porras Guisado v Bankia, S.A. and Others
   (Case C-103/16)
   (2016/C 165/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Sala Social

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant and appellant: Jessica Porras Guisado

      Defendants and respondents: Bankia, S.A., Sección Sindical de Bankia de CCOO, Sección Sindical de Bankia de UGT, Sección Sindical de Bankia de ACCAM, Sección Sindical de Bankia de SATE, Sección Sindical de Bankia de CSICA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85, (1) does the notion of ‘exceptional cases not connected with their condition which are permitted under national legislation and/or practice’, constituting an exception to the prohibition of dismissing pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, correspond to the notion of ‘one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned’ referred to in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EEC (2) of 20 July 1998, or is it more restricted?

               2.

               In the event of collective redundancy, in order to decide whether exceptional cases exist that justify the dismissal of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85, is there a requirement that the worker affected cannot be reassigned to another work post or is it sufficient that proof should be given of economic, technical and productive reasons that affect her work post?

               3.

               Is legislation, such as the Spanish legislation, that transposes that prohibition by providing a guarantee by virtue of which, failing any proof of reasons justifying her dismissal, the dismissal is declared void (reparative protection), but does lay down a prohibition of dismissal (preventive protection), compatible with Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992?

               4.

               Is legislation, such as the Spanish legislation, which does not provide for priority for retention in the undertaking in the event of collective redundancy for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, compatible with Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992?

               5.

               For the purposes of Article 10(2) of Directive 92/85, is national legislation compatible with this provision if it treats as sufficient a letter of dismissal like that in these proceedings, whereby a worker who is pregnant is dismissed by virtue of the decision to effect a collective termination of contracts, even though that letter makes no reference whatsoever to the existence of any exceptional grounds over and above those which prompted the collective redundancy?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).


title: Case T-185/12: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014  — HUK-Coburg v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/58

         Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014 — HUK-Coburg v Commission
   (Case T-185/12) (1)

   2014/C 292/73
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case C-76/07: Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-76/07) (1)

   (2007/C 235/19)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-448/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/55

         Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-448/09)
   2010/C 24/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the Commission to refund the amount allegedly receivable of EUR 110 102,26, together with interest on late payment at the statutory rate in accordance with Belgian law governing the contract, claimed by the Commission under the contract by its debit note of 29 June 2009 (Ref No 3230906067) and which gave rise to a set-off measure dated 17 August 2009 (Ref BUDG/C3 D(2009) 10.5 — 1232);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) requests the Court to order the Commission to refund the amount receivable (EUR 110 102,26) referred to in debit note No 3230906067 of 29 June 2009, which is allegedly payable by the applicant under the EURO-THYMAIDE contract relating to a project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development, and which gave rise to a set-off measure dated 17 August 2009, together with interest on late payment.
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its application, alleging:

               —

               failure to comply with the contractual criteria for justification of costs, in that the Commission failed to apply Article II.19.1 of the General Conditions of the EURO-THYMAIDE contract relating to eligible costs; and, in the alternative, with the obligation of good faith laid down by Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code — by dismissing evidence of the direct costs of staff involved in the project, the evidential value of which was nevertheless obvious. This approach caused the Commission erroneously to reject certain direct personnel costs and to make adjustments which resulted in the disputed claim;

               —

               the erroneous assessment of the Provision pour Perte d’Emploi (loss of employment provision; ‘PPE’) in the light of the criteria laid down by Articles II.19.1, II.19.2.c and II.20 of the General Conditions of the EURO-THYMAIDE contract, in so far as, contrary to its misleading name, PPE is a personnel cost associated with unemployment insurance that is indissociable from eligible personnel costs. By refusing to allow eligible costs to include amounts corresponding to the PPE levied against the pay of temporary CNRS staff involved in the project, the Commission infringed the requirements referred to above;

               —

               the manifestly erroneous assessment of sick pay in the light of the eligibility criteria provided for under the contract, in that, contrary to Article II.19 of the General Conditions of the EURO-THYMAIDE contract, the Commission included in the costs deemed ineligible salaries paid during periods of sick leave to CNRS staff involved in the project.


title: Case T-585/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — H. P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM (Gauff JBG Ingenieure) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gauff JBG Ingenieure — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks GAUFF — Relative grounds for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — H. P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM (Gauff JBG Ingenieure)
   (Case T-585/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Gauff JBG Ingenieure - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks GAUFF - Relative grounds for refusal - Partial refusal to register - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: H. P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 596/2013-1) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-393/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for failure to act — Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Active substance azinphos-methyl — Inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Absence of a new Commission proposal after opposition by the Council — Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EEC — Non-actionable measure — Absence of a request to act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others v Commission
   (Case T-393/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for failure to act - Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Active substance azinphos-methyl - Inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Absence of a new Commission proposal after opposition by the Council - Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EEC - Non-actionable measure - Absence of a request to act - Inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 32/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl (Bergamo, Italy); and Magan Italia Srl (Bergamo) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the applicants: European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) (Brussels, Belgium)(represented by: D. Waelbroeck and N. Rampal, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission decision, alleged to be contained in a letter of 12 October 2006, not to submit a proposal with a view to inclusion of the active substance azinphos-methyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), or, in the alternative, application for a declaration that the Commission has failed to act in unlawfully failing to submit such a proposal.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               The European Crop Protection Association shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-211/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Borrekuil v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Borrekuil v Commission
   (Case T-211/99) (1)

   (2006/C 261/56)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.


title: Case T-372/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Bolloré v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Carbonless paper market — Price-fixing — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision taken following the annulment of a first decision — Imputation of the infringement to the parent company, as directly responsible — Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege — Legal certainty — Individual nature of penalties — Fair hearing — Equal treatment — Reasonable time — Rights of the defence — Fines — Limitation period — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Bolloré v Commission
   (Case T-372/10) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Carbonless paper market - Price-fixing - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision taken following the annulment of a first decision - Imputation of the infringement to the parent company, as directly responsible - Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Legal certainty - Individual nature of penalties - Fair hearing - Equal treatment - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence - Fines - Limitation period - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2012/C 235/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bolloré (Ergué-Gabéric, France) (represented by: P. Gassenbach, C. Lemaire and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment or alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4160 final of 23 June 2010, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.212 — Carbonless paper).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-484/09: Action brought on 27 November 2009 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/40

         Action brought on 27 November 2009 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball)
   (Case T-484/09)
   2010/C 37/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rory McLoughney (Thurles, Ireland) (represented by: J. M. Stratford-Lysandrides, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ernst Kern (Zahling, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2009 in case R 1547/2006-4;

               —

               Allow the opposition to the Community trade mark application No 3 164 779; and

               —

               In the alternative, remit the opposition to the defendant for further consideration in accordance with the judgment of the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Powerball’, for goods in classes 10, 25 and 28

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

      Mark or sign cited: Non-registered mark ‘POWERBALL’, used in the course of trade in Ireland and the United Kingdom

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(3) and 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Articles 8(3) and 75, respectively, of Council Regulation No 207/2009) and Rules 50(2) and 52(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the opposition under Article 8(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and should have recognised that the applicant had the requisite authority to oppose the Community trade mark concerned; infringement of Articles 8(4) and 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(4) and 75, respectively, of Council Regulation No 207/2009) and Rules 50(2) and 52(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the opposition under Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and should have recognised that the applicant was the proprietor of the earlier rights and that it had used the mark cited in the opposition in the course of trade.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-519/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Toshiba v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing agreement — Proof of distancing from the cartel — Restriction of competition — Effect on trade — Barriers to entry — Fines — Basic amount — Reference year — Section 18 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Use of a notional market share in the EEA market)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Toshiba v Commission
   (Case T-519/09) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing agreement - Proof of distancing from the cartel - Restriction of competition - Effect on trade - Barriers to entry - Fines - Basic amount - Reference year - Section 18 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Use of a notional market share in the EEA market))
   2014/C 212/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, J. Jourdan and P. Berghe, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power Transformers), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-140/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  14 September 2005  — Ehcon v Commission (Public service contracts — Call for tenders — Rejection of tenderer's offer — Non-contractual liability — Limitation period — Inadmissibility — Action clearly unfounded)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2005 — Ehcon v Commission
   (Case T-140/04) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Call for tenders - Rejection of tenderer's offer - Non-contractual liability - Limitation period - Inadmissibility - Action clearly unfounded)
   (2005/C 296/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Adviesbureau Ehcon BV (Reeuwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Goedkoop, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, Agents)
   Application for
   compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the rejection of its tender under a call for tenders, published on 10 April 1996 (OJ 1996 C 232, p. 35), for services in relation to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11).
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly clearly without foundation.

               2.

               The applicant is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004.


title: Case T-55/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  — RKW v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/20

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 — RKW v Commission
   (Case T-55/06)
   (2006/C 96/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: RKW AG Rheinische Kunststoffwerke (Worms, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case C(2005) 4635 final, COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), served on the applicant on 14 December 2005, in so far as it concerns the latter;
               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags. In the contested decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC since, according to the Commission, it participated in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the industrial bags sector in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
   In support of its action the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the duty of administrative authorities to comply strictly with the law. The defendant's method of levying fines does not fall within the scope of the enabling provision, namely Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (1), or Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (2). In that regard, the applicant also claims that the principles of equal treatment and proportionality have been infringed.
   In addition, the applicant complains that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the guidelines on fixing fines have been misapplied. In particular, the submission and evaluation of the evidence in relation to the applicant was irregular. Furthermore, in view of previous administrative practice the applicant was disproportionately fined. As regards the amount of the initial sum for the gravity of the infringement, the applicant alleges that it was treated unequally, in several respects, in relation to the other parties to which the contested decision was also addressed. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law with regard to the assessment of the duration of the infringement and did not take mitigating circumstances into account. Finally, the applicant submits that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 has also been infringed as the fine was wrongly fixed in the light of the application of the Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).

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


title: Case T-111/08: Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/26

         Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission
   (Case T-111/08)
   (2008/C 116/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: MasterCard Inc. (Purchase, United States), Mastercard International Inc. (Purchase, United States) and MasterCard Europe SPRL (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers, and T. Sharpe, QC)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul the decision in its entirety; or, in the alternative, annul Articles 3,4,5 and 7 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 6474 final of 19 December 2007 in Cases COMP/34.579 — MasterCard, COMP/36.518 — EuroCommerce, COMP/38.580 — Commercial Cards (MasterCard) and, in the alternative, of the specific provisions of the decision concerning the imposed remedy, on the grounds that the decision is vitiated by errors of law, insufficient or lack of reasoning and manifest errors of fact. In addition, the application is based on the violation of the applicants' rights of defence during the Commission's investigation. Specifically, the applicants invoke the following grounds, variously based on Articles 229 EC, 230 EC and 253 EC, as well as the principles of EC law.
   First, according to the applicants, the Commission misdirected itself in law and in fact, a) by failing to properly identify a restriction of competition in the sense of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA, b) as to the proper standard to be applied in assessing an objective necessity under the above-mentioned provisions.
   Second, the applicants submit that the Commission misdirected itself in law and in fact in holding that the 'MasterCard Payment Organisation' constitutes an association of undertakings within the meaning of Articles 81(1) EC and 53(1) EEA, and that the cross-border interchange fee and related rules constitute a decision thereof.
   Third, the applicants claim that the Commission is guilty of several infringements of essential procedural requirements and that the remedy and enforcement measures it imposed are disproportionate.
   In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission demands an unlawfully high standard of proof in order to fulfil the conditions of Article 81(3) EC.


title: Case C-285/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A.T. v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften (Directive 90/434/EEC — Cross-border exchange of shares — Fiscal neutrality — Conditions — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Legislation of a Member State making the continued use of the book value of the shares transferred in exchange for the new shares received, and therefore the fiscal neutrality of the transfer, conditional on the carryover of that value in the tax balance sheet of the acquiring foreign company — Compatibility)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A.T. v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
   (Case C-285/07) (1)

   (Directive 90/434/EEC - Cross-border exchange of shares - Fiscal neutrality - Conditions - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Legislation of a Member State making the continued use of the book value of the shares transferred in exchange for the new shares received, and therefore the fiscal neutrality of the transfer, conditional on the carryover of that value in the tax balance sheet of the acquiring foreign company - Compatibility)
   (2009/C 32/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A.T.

      Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

      Intervening party: Bundesministerium der Finanzen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) and of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Shareholder receiving securities representing the capital of the acquiring company in exchange for securities of the acquired company — Taxation of the shareholder of the acquired company — Tax legislation of a Member State making the shareholder's attribution of the book value (Buchwertansatz) to the securities received in exchange conditional upon the acquiring company's own attribution of the book value to the securities exchanged (doppelte Buchwertverknüpfung)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in consequence of an exchange of shares, the shareholders of the acquired company are taxed on the capital gains arising from the transfer and the capital gain is deemed to correspond to the difference between the initial cost of acquiring the shares transferred and their market value, unless the acquiring company carries over the historical book value of the shares transferred in its own tax balance sheet.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-13/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Conseil d'État): Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian State (Obligation to give prior notification under Directive 83/189/EEC - Technical regulations and specifications - Marking of products subject to environmental tax)

text:
No C 142/6              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      ( Commercial Court), Pontoise, France, for a preliminary
                          ( Sixth Chamber )                               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          between Phytheron International SA and Jean Bourdon SA
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                          — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
in Case C-323/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.
the Saarlandisches Oberlandesgericht): David Charles                      Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH,                      Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
                          in liquidation ( ! )                            and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;
                                                                          H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of                           given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has
                nationality — Security for costs)                         ruled :
                            ( 97/C 142/11 )
                                                                          Article 7 of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of
                (Language of the case: German)                            21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding application of a national rule in Member
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          State A under which the owner of a trade mark may
In Case C-323/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               prevent importation of a product protected by the mark
of the EC Treaty from the Saarlandisches Oberlandesge                    where
richt ( Saarland Higher Regional Court) ( Germany), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 — the product has been manufactured in a non-member
court between David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                           country,
Hayes, on the one hand, and Kronenberger GmbH, in
liquidation, on the other — on the interpretation of the                  — it has been imported into Member State B by the
first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                      owner of the mark or by another company in the same
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President                       group as the owner of the mark,
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A.                    — it has been lawfully acquired in Member State B by an
La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                         independent trader, who has exported it to Member
given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has                             State A,
ruled :
                                                                          — it has not been processed and the packaging has not
Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as
                                                                               been changed, apart from the addition to the label of
precluding a Member State from requiring security for                          certain information to comply with the requirements
costs to be furnished by a national of another Member                          of the legislation of the Member State of import, and
State who has brought an action in one of its civil courts
against one of its nationals where that requirement may
                                                                          — the trade mark rights are held in Member States A and
not be imposed on its own nationals who have neither
                                                                               B by the same group.
assets nor a residence in that country, in a situation where
 the action is connected with the exercise of fundamental
                                                                           O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
 (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                       of 20 March 1997
                         of 20 March 1997
                                                                          in Case C-13/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-352/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the Belgian Conseil d'Etat): Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian
 the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise ): Phytheron                                                        State (')
            International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA ( l )                      (Obligation to give prior notification under Directive 83/
 (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Trade Mark                         189/EEC — Technical regulations and specifications —
 Directive — Plant health product — Parallel import —                          Marking of products subject to environmental tax)
                               Exhaustion)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/ 13 )
                             ( 97/C 142/12 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
 In Case C-352/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               In Case C-13/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                            of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Conseil d'Etat ( Council
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/7
of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
pending before that court between Bic Benelux SA and                  Chamber (Judge-Rapporteur), L. Sevón, D. A. O. Edward,
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) and          J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
( 5 ) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
laying down a procedure for the provision of information              20 March 1997, in which it:
in the field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ No
L 109, 26 . 4 . 1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Council
Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( OJ No L 81 ,                  1 . declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
26 . 3 . 1988 , p. 75 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                      time-limit, the laws, regulations and administrative
composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O.                       93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical
Edward and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                         devices, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                            obligations under Article 22 thereof;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                                 2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
An obligation to affix specific distinctive signs to products         (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
which are subject to a tax levied on them on account of
the environmental damage which they are deemed to
cause, such as that laid down in Articles 1 1 and 18 of the
Ministerial Order of 24 December 1993 concerning the
treatment of products subject to environmental tax,
constitutes a technical specification within the meaning of
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
down a procedure for the provision of information in the                                       (First Chamber)
field of technical standards and regulations, as amended
                                                                                of 6 March 1997
by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, and
the national enactment introducing it is a technical                  in Case C- 15 0/96 P: Roberto Galtieri v. European
regulation within the meaning of the same Directive.                                             Parliament (M
(>) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                        published in the European Court Reports)
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                      In Case C-150/96 P: Roberto Galtieri, temporary agent of
in Case       C-294/96: Commission of the European                    the European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')                     by Pietro Cuomo, of the Naples Bar, with an address for
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stef
Failure to transpose Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical                    Oostvogels, PO Box 221 , 13 Rue Aldringen, — appeal
                               devices)                               against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First
                                                                      Chamber ) of 27 February 1996 in Case T-235/94 Galtieri
                           ( 97/C 142/14 )                            v. Parliament [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-129 , seeking to have that
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                (Language of the case: French)                        being European Parliament ( Agent: Manfred Peter) — the
                                                                      Court ( First Chamber), composed of L. Sevón, President
                                                                      of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and P.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Jann, Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 1997, in
                                                                      which it:
In Case C-294/96 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francois
Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder)                 1 . dismisses the appeal;
— application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
within the prescribed time-limit, the laws, regulations and           2 . orders the appellant to bear the costs.
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
                                                                      (') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
medical devices ( OJ No L 169, 12 . 7. 1993 , p. 1 ), the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),


title: Case C-256/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Mitsui & Co. Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Community Customs Code — Repayment of customs duties — Article 29(1) and (3)(a) — Value for customs purposes — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 145(2) and (3) — Taking into account, for customs valuation purposes, of payments made by the seller in performance of a warranty obligation provided for in the contract of sale — Temporal application — Substantive rules — Procedural rules — Retroactive application of a rule — Validity)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Mitsui & Co. Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-256/07) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Repayment of customs duties - Article 29(1) and (3)(a) - Value for customs purposes - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 145(2) and (3) - Taking into account, for customs valuation purposes, of payments made by the seller in performance of a warranty obligation provided for in the contract of sale - Temporal application - Substantive rules - Procedural rules - Retroactive application of a rule - Validity)
   2009/C 113/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mitsui & Co. Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 29(1) and (3)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Article 145(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 of 11 March 2002 (OJ 2002 L 68, p. 11) — Validity of those provisions in so far as they also apply retroactively to imports in respect of which the customs declaration was accepted before the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 — Taking into account, in the context of the determination of the customs value of imported goods, payments made by the seller in performance of a warranty obligation, laid down in the contract of sale, to reimburse to the buyer the costs incurred in providing services under the warranty which the buyer had to provide to its own customers as a result of defective goods

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 29(1) and (3)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 145(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 of 11 March 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that, when defects affecting goods became apparent after the goods were released for free circulation, but it is demonstrated that they existed before such release, and those defects give rise, under a warranty obligation, to subsequent reimbursements by the seller/manufacturer to the buyer, reimbursements which correspond to the costs of repairs invoiced by the buyer’s own distributors, such reimbursements can result in a reduction of the transaction value of the goods and, as a result, of their customs value, which was declared on the basis of the price initially agreed between the seller/manufacturer and the buyer.

               2.

               Article 145(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 444/2002, do not apply to imports in respect of which the customs declarations were accepted before 19 March 2002.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-419/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern (Directive 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a Member State to recognise, in favour of a person whose driving licence was withdrawn on its territory, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-419/10) (1)

   (Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal by a Member State to recognise, in favour of a person whose driving licence was withdrawn on its territory, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)
   2012/C 174/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a Member State to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is withdrawn in its territory.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126/EC of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, outside any period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence imposed on the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and when the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the said holder has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing a previous driving licence.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-143/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico v OHIM — FFR (F.F.R.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark ‘F.F.R.’ — Earlier national figurative marks CHIANTI CLASSICO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico v OHIM — FFR (F.F.R.)
   (Case T-143/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark ‘F.F.R.’ - Earlier national figurative marks CHIANTI CLASSICO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 26/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (Radda in Chianti, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona, G. Ciccone and A. Loffredo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by V. Melgar and G. Mannucci and subsequently by V. Melgar and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fédération française de rugby (FFR) (Marcoussis, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2011 (Case R 43/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consorzio vino Chianti Classico and Fédération française de rugby (FFR).

      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 10 January 2011 (Case R 43/2010-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected the opposition based on Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Consorzio vino Chianti Classico and OHIM each to bear the costs which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-289/07: Action brought on 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/25

         Action brought on 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-289/07)
   (2007/C 183/44)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               principally, declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2004/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC;

               —

               or, declare that, by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that same provision;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


title: Case C-96/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Magyar Köztársaság) lodged on 3 March 2008 — CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltátó, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Magyar Köztársaság) lodged on 3 March 2008 — CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltátó, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály
   (Case C-96/08)
   (2008/C 142/18)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Pest Megyei Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltátó, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft.

      Defendant: Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály
   Question referred
   Can the principle of freedom of establishment under Articles 43 and 48 EC be interpreted as precluding a legal rule under which a trading company established in Hungary must pay a vocational training levy if it employs workers in a branch abroad and meets its tax and social security obligations with regard to such workers in the State where the branch is situated?