title: Case T-138/00: Action brought on 23 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
12.8.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/29
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      Action brought on 23 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk
A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I, v European Ombudsman (Agent:                  GmbH against the Office for Harmonization in the
G. Grill) and European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
A. Caiola) — application for a declaration that the Om-
budsman and, as the case may be, the Parliament unlawfully
failed to make a finding of maladministration on the part of                                      (Case T-138/00)
the Commission — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and
N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                                          (2000/C 233/55)
22 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                                              (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          25 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH, Ertingen, Federal
                                                                          Republic of Germany, represented by Stephan v. Petersdorff-
                                                                          Campen, Rechtsanwälte von Rospatt, von der Osten, Pross,
                                                                          Düsseldorf.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          of 24 May 2000
                                                                          —     annul decision R 392/1999-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                                Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
in Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand v Commission of                             Market of 23 March 2000 in so far as it dismisses the
                  the European Communities                                      appeal;
(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Reassignment
      decision — Prima facie case — Urgency — None)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 233/54)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand, an official of the                   Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘DAS PRINZIP DER
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Buch-                                               BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ — applica-
arest (Romania), represented by G. Vandersanden, of the                                                 tion no. 806620
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v                 Goods or services:            Goods in classes 12 and 20 (inter
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-                                               alia vehicles and furniture)
sia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application, first, and by
way of interim measures, for access to the file of the steering
                                                                          Decision contested befo-      ner
committee of the Commission’s External Service or, at the very
                                                                          re the Board of Appeal:
least, for production by the Commission of all reports and
                                                                                Refusal to register by the Exami-
other documents concerning the applicant and, second, for
suspension of operation of the decision of that committee of              Pleas in law relied on:
28 January 2000 reassigning the applicant to the Directorate-                                           — Misapplication
                                                                                cle 7(1)(b) of     of
                                                                                Regulation
                                                                                Arti-
General for the Internal Market in Brussels — the President of                                               No 40/94
the Court of First Instance made an order on 24 May 2000,                                               — Misapplication        of   Arti-
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                   cle 7(1)(c) of     Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-683/15: Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/81

         Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission
   (Case T-683/15)
   (2016/C 048/89)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the Federal Republic of Germany granted State aid unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Land of Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria, which is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               annul Articles 2 to 4 of the contested decision in so far as they order recovery of the aid with interest in respect of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

               Within the context of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the alleged aid from the Land budget was not covered by the opening decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
               The applicant asserts that the dairies in connection with the funding of the milk quality tests would not receive State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they were not given any selective advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law (in the alternative): No infringement of the notification requirement
               The applicant submits that the measures must be regarded as ‘existing aid’. The recovery therefore infringes Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law (in the alternative): An error of law was made in dismissing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU

               5.

               Fifth plea in law (in the alternative): The order for recovery of the aid infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Joined Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. v European Commission, Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (C-293/13 P), European Commission v Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (C-294/13 P) (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market — Coordination in the setting of quotation prices — Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies — Concept of ‘decisive influence’ — Whether the conduct of one company may be imputed to another — Distortion of evidence — Burden of proof — Principle of in dubio pro reo — Concept of ‘single and continuous infringement’ — Concept of ‘concerted practice’ — Concept of ‘infringement by object’ — Undertakings that are members of the same cartel — Communication of information to the Commission — Legal obligation — Scope — Protection against self-incrimination — Intervener at first instance — Cross-appeal — Admissibility)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. v European Commission, Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (C-293/13 P), European Commission v Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (C-294/13 P)
   (Joined Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market - Coordination in the setting of quotation prices - Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies - Concept of ‘decisive influence’ - Whether the conduct of one company may be imputed to another - Distortion of evidence - Burden of proof - Principle of in dubio pro reo - Concept of ‘single and continuous infringement’ - Concept of ‘concerted practice’ - Concept of ‘infringement by object’ - Undertakings that are members of the same cartel - Communication of information to the Commission - Legal obligation - Scope - Protection against self-incrimination - Intervener at first instance - Cross-appeal - Admissibility))
   (2015/C 279/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      (Case C-293/13 P)

      Appellant: Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (represented by: B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt, and L. Suhr, Advocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents), Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: K. Smith, QC, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors)

      (Case C-293/13 P)

      Appellant: European Commission: (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (represented by: B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt and L. Suhr, Advocate), Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG, (represented by: K. Smith, QC, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal in Case C-293/13 P and the cross-appeals in Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P;

               2.

               Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission (T-587/08, EU:T:2013:129);

               3.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed in Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39 188 — Bananas) at EUR 9 8 00  000;

               4.

               Orders Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. to pay the costs relating to (i) the main appeals in Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P and (ii) its cross-appeal in Case C-294/13 P, with the exception of the costs incurred by Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG, which is to bear its own costs relating to all those proceedings;

               5.

               Orders Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs relating its cross-appeals in Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-14/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Nickel Institute v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Environment and protection of human health — Directive 67/548/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Classification of nickel carbonates, nickel hydroxides and a number of grouped nickel substances as dangerous substances — Validity of Directives 2008/58/EC and 2009/2/EC and of Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 — Adaptation of the classifications to technical and scientific progress — Validity — Methods of assessing the intrinsic properties of those substances — Manifest error of assessment — Legal basis — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Nickel Institute v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-14/10) (1)

   (Environment and protection of human health - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification of nickel carbonates, nickel hydroxides and a number of grouped nickel substances as dangerous substances - Validity of Directives 2008/58/EC and 2009/2/EC and of Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Adaptation of the classifications to technical and scientific progress - Validity - Methods of assessing the intrinsic properties of those substances - Manifest error of assessment - Legal basis - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 269/14
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Nickel Institute

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity, so far as concerns the reclassification of nickel carbonates as carcinogenic substances, of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1) — Inadequate assessment of the intrinsic properties of the nickel carbonates in relation to the requirements laid down in Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, first, of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances and of Commission Directive 2009/2/EC of 15 January 2009 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 31st time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances and, second, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, in so far as those directives and that regulation classified as carcinogenic to man in category 1, mutagenic in category 3 and reprotoxic in category 2 substances such as certain nickel carbonates, the nickel hydroxides and other grouped nickel substances at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-678/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement — Services offered in Spain by pension funds and insurance companies established in another Member State — Occupational pension schemes — Obligation to designate a tax representative resident in Spain — Restrictive nature — Justification — Effective fiscal supervision and prevention of tax avoidance — Proportionality)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-678/11) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement - Services offered in Spain by pension funds and insurance companies established in another Member State - Occupational pension schemes - Obligation to designate a tax representative resident in Spain - Restrictive nature - Justification - Effective fiscal supervision and prevention of tax avoidance - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 046/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by having adopted the provisions of Article 46(c) of Royal Legislative Decree 1/2002 approving the consolidated text of the Law governing pension schemes and funds (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2002, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Regulación de los Planes y Fondos de Pensiones) of 29 November 2002, and Article 86(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 6/2004 approving the consolidated text of the Law on the organisation and supervision of private insurance (Real Decreto Legislativo 6/2004, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de ordenación y supervisión de los seguros privados) of 29 October 2004, pursuant to which pension funds established in Member States other than the Kingdom of Spain and offering occupational pension schemes in that Member State and insurance companies operating in Spain under the freedom to provide services are required to appoint a tax representative resident in that Member State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case C-427/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/100/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/23

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-427/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 180/38
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Michelogiannaki, agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Case C-456/01 P and C-457/01P: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Distinctive character)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Joined Case C-456/01 P and C-457/01P: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctive character)
   (2004/C 118/26)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P: two appeals by Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), (Lawyer: C. Osterrieth ) – against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 in Case T-335/99 Henkel v OHIM (rectangular tablet, red and white) [2001] ECR II-2581 and Case T-336/99 Henkel v OHIM (rectangular tablet, green and white) [2001] ECR II-2589, seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Laitinen ) Ä the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Henkel KGaA to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002


title: Case C-455/07 P: Appeal brought on 9 October 2007 by Ente per le Ville Vesuviane against the judgment delivered on 18 July 2007 in Case T-189/02 Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/28

         Appeal brought on 9 October 2007 by Ente per le Ville Vesuviane against the judgment delivered on 18 July 2007 in Case T-189/02 Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-455/07 P)
   (2007/C 297/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Ente per le Ville Vesuviane (represented by: E. Soprano, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in part, in accordance with the pleas set out below, the judgment under appeal and, consequently, declare void Decision D(2002) 810111, prot. 102504 of 13 March 2002 of the Directorate General for Regional Policy of the European Commission, and if necessary and in so far as is reasonable, Memorandum No Gt/SF/MF D(01) 810542, prot. 109720 of 12 October 2001 of the Directorate General for Regional Policy of the European Commission;

               —

               in the alternative, annul in part, in accordance with the pleas set out below, the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a ruling on the substance of the dispute in the light of the directions which the Court sees fit to give for that purpose;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of both the present proceedings and the proceedings at first instance in Case T-189/02.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   (1)   Error of law, failure to make inquiries and failure to state reasons with regard to Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 (1) as amended
   The assistance acquired by the appellant and financed by the ERDF was uniform in nature, as confirmed by the wording of both the Commission decision of 18 December 1986, by which the contribution which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings was granted, and Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 (2) (Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 as amended).
   Accordingly, it follows that the assistance in question could not be divided into functional portions — as held, wrongly, by the Court of First Instance — and that therefore the suspension for judicial reasons even of just one part of that assistance, shown in the completion times for the same, required the entitlement introduced by Article 12 to be extended to the entire project financed by the decision of 18 December 1986.
   (2)   Error of law, failure to make inquiries and infringement of the rights of the defence with regard to Article 4 of the Commission decision of 18 December 1986
   Contrary to what is stated in the judgment under appeal, in the proceedings at first instance the Ente per le Ville Vesuviane had documentary evidence that the works being carried out at the Villa Ruggiero (one of the three villas which are the subject-matter of the financial assistance in the decision of 18 December 1986) had been suspended for judicial reasons from 1989 through the whole of 1996, and therefore had not been completed in 1992, as maintained by the Italian State authorities.
   In that regard, as indeed earlier before the Court of First Instance, the participation of the Ente in the proceedings prior to the adoption of the measure challenged at first instance would therefore certainly have been decisive, given that the Commission, faced with the documentary evidence referred to above — which would of course have been provided, if necessary, by the appellant — and in consideration of the uniform nature of the assistance realised by the latter, would certainly have recognised that the exception provided for in Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 as amended applied to the assistance in question, amd that the assistance granted in 1986 could not be ended early.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 15).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/898 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 34).


title: Case T-64/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Michał Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/39

         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Michał Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)
   (Case T-64/16)
   (2016/C 111/47)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Michał Wieromiejczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Tasty Puff’ — Application for registration No 13 072 061

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 in Case R 3058/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be well founded;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               amend the contested decision by requiring EUIPO to grant the right to Trade Mark No 13072061 ‘Tasty Puff’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

   Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
   Breach of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-160/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas O.E. v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas O.E. v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   (Case C-160/09)
   2009/C 153/53
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas O.E.

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

      Question referred

   Can an individual (an importer of bananas from Ecuador) who claims the refund of domestic excise duty as having been wrongly paid plead before the national court that the national tax rule (Article 7 of Law 1798/1988, as amended by Article 10 of Law 1914/1990) is incompatible with Article 4 of the 1984 agreement between the European Economic Community and the member countries of the Cartagena Agreement, which was approved by Council Regulation (ΕEC) No 1591/84? (1)

      (1)  OJ L 153, 8.6.1984, p. 1.


title: Case C-99/04: Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/29

         Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-99/04)
   (2004/C 94/64)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 27 November 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 1.


title: Case C-245/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Nerea SpA v Regione Marche (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — General exemption by category — Scope — Article 1(6)(c) — Article 1(7)(c) — Concept of ‘undertaking in difficulty’ — Concept of ‘collective insolvency proceedings’ — Company granted State aid under a regional operational programme of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) subsequently admitted to an arrangement with creditors as a going concern — Withdrawal of the aid — Obligation to reimburse the advance paid)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Nerea SpA v Regione Marche
   (Case C-245/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - General exemption by category - Scope - Article 1(6)(c) - Article 1(7)(c) - Concept of ‘undertaking in difficulty’ - Concept of ‘collective insolvency proceedings’ - Company granted State aid under a regional operational programme of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) subsequently admitted to an arrangement with creditors as a going concern - Withdrawal of the aid - Obligation to reimburse the advance paid))
   (2017/C 283/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nerea SpA

      Defendant: Regione Marche

      intervening parties: Banca del Mezzogiorno — MedioCredito Centrale SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in accordance with Articles [107 and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘collective insolvency proceedings’ that it refers to covers all collective insolvency proceedings for undertakings provided for by national law, whether they are opened by the national administrative or judicial authorities of their own motion or on the initiative of the undertaking concerned;

               2.

               Article 1(7)(c) of Regulation No 800/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an undertaking satisfied the conditions for being subject to collective insolvency proceedings according to national law, which is for the referring court to establish, is sufficient to prevent State aid being granted to it under that regulation or, if such aid has already been granted to it, to hold that it could not be granted in accordance with that regulation provided that those conditions were satisfied on the date on which that aid was granted. However, aid granted to an undertaking in compliance with Regulation No 800/2008 and, in particular, Article 1(6) thereof, cannot be withdrawn solely on the ground that that undertaking has been subject to collective insolvency proceedings subsequent to the date on which that aid was granted to it.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-321/07: Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHMI — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos (A+)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/50

         Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHMI — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos (A+)
   (Case T-321/07)
   (2007/C 269/91)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GbmH (Neu Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Applus Servicios Technologicos, S.L. (formerly Agbar Automotive, S.L.) (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               That the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 7 June 2007 in Case R 310/2006-2, pertaining to the opposition based on Community trademark registration No 2 335 693 ‘Airplus International’ against Community trademark application No 2 933 356 ‘A+’ be annulled;

               —

               that the opposition against Community trademark application No 2 933 356 ‘A+’ be granted and application for registration of Community trademark registration No 2 933 356 ‘A+’ be rejected;

               —

               that the defendant pays the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Applus Servicios Technologicos, S.L. (formerly Agbar Automotive, S.L.)

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘A+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42 — application No 2 933 356

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GbmH

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘Airplus International’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1) and 8(5) as well as Articles 73, 74 and 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
   The applicant claims that the Board failed to evaluate the criteria of identity of goods and services as well as the similarity of the marks and disregarded the reputation enjoyed by the earlier mark. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Board has breached its duty to state the reasons on which its decision was based. Also, according to the applicant, the Board did not restrict itself to the examination of uncontested facts, evidence and arguments put forward by the parties. Furthermore, the applicant contends that its rights of due process were severely impaired by the Office's failure to inform the applicant about the replacement of the trademark's proprietor by another company. Finally, it is submitted that the Board exceeded its powers when taking into account the submissions filed by the trademark proprietor, without justification, beyond the time-limit set by the Office.


title: Case C-510/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 September 2016 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS, Fnac Paris, Fnac Direct, Relais Fnac, Codirep, Fnac Périphérie v Minister for Finance and Public Accounts

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 September 2016 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS, Fnac Paris, Fnac Direct, Relais Fnac, Codirep, Fnac Périphérie v Minister for Finance and Public Accounts
   (Case C-510/16)
   (2016/C 462/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS, Fnac Paris, Fnac Direct, Relais Fnac, Codirep, Fnac Périphérie

      Defendant: Minister for Finance and Public Accounts

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation in which an aid scheme is financed by allocated resources, where a Member State has regularly notified the Commission of legal changes having a significant impact on that scheme prior to their implementation, and in particular of changes relating to the method by which the scheme is financed, does a substantial increase in revenue from fiscal resources allocated to the scheme, compared to the projections submitted to the European Commission, constitute a significant change within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, now Article 108 TFEU, which would require a new notification to be made?

               2.

               In the same situation, how is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (1) to be applied, pursuant to which an increase in the original budget of an existing aid scheme exceeding 20 % constitutes a change to that aid scheme and, in particular:

                           (a)

                           how does it combine with the obligation to notify the Commission in advance of an aid scheme, laid down in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, now Article 108 TFEU?

                           (b)

                           if exceeding the 20 % threshold of the original budget of an existing aid scheme provided for under Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 requires a new notification, must that threshold be assessed in relation to the amount of expenditure allocated or to the expenditure actually granted to the beneficiaries, excluding the sums placed in the reserve or those having been made subject to a levy for the benefit of the State?

                           (c)

                           assuming that compliance with the 20 % threshold must be assessed in relation to the expenditure dedicated to the aid scheme, must such an assessment be made by comparing the overall level of expenditure in the approval decision with the overall budget subsequently allocated to all aid schemes granted by the body responsible for such allocations, or by comparing the levels notified under each of the categories of aid identified in that decision with that body’s corresponding budget line?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).


title: Case T-448/10: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2011 — Apple v OHIM — Iphone Media (IPH IPHONE) (Community trade mark — Partial refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/14

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2011 — Apple v OHIM — Iphone Media (IPH IPHONE)
   (Case T-448/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 13/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apple Inc. (California, United States) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister and J. Olsen, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Iphone Media SA (Seville, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 July 2010 (Case R 1084/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Apple Inc and Iphone Media SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt by order of that body of 2 February 1996 in the review procedure of (1) Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG, (2) J.L. Bacon Gesellschaft mbH, (3) Haustechnische Gesellschaft für Sanitär-, Wärme- und Luft-Technische Anlagen GmbH and (4) Sulzer Infra Anlagen- und Gebäudetechnik Gesellschaft mbH v. Strohal Rotationsdruck GmbH (Case C-44/96)

text:
No C 95/ 12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30 . 3 . 96
( 2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              establish that undertaking as meeting needs in the
                                                                              general interest not having an industrial or commercial
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           character within the meaning of Article 1 ( b ) of Directive
                                                                              93/37/EEC ( ! ) and make such an undertaking as a whole
                                                                              fall within the scope of that Directive, even if those
Infringement of Article 17 (2 ) of Directive 77/388/EEC:
                                                                              activities form only part of the undertaking's activity
contrary to the contention of the French authorities, the
                                                                              and the undertaking in addition participates in the
exception to the principle of entitlement to deduct the input                 market as a commercial undertaking ?
VAT paid by a taxable person, as referred to in Article 17
( 6 ), cannot be interpreted autonomously in such a way as to
allow Member States to maintain exclusions which are                      2 . In the event that such an undertaking falls within the
general and absolute in scope and which apply to all                          scope of Directive 93/37/EEC only with respect to the
expenditure, including that of a business nature . Article 17                 special and exclusive rights conferred on it, is such an
( 6 ) constitutes a ' standstill ' provision adopted in the absence           undertaking obliged to take organizational measures to
of agreement on a Community list of exclusions from the                       prevent financial means obtained from earnings from
deduction entitlement, covering expenditure which is                          those special and exclusive rights being switched to
intended by its nature to satisfy private needs and which                     other sectors of activity ?
cannot therefore give rise to any deduction entitlement; the
second sentence of the first paragraph thus comprises the                 3 . If a contracting authority starts a project and that
minimum agreement which could be reached at the time                          project is therefore to be classified as a public works
when the Directive was adopted .                                              contract within the meaning of Directive 93/37/EEC,
                                                                              may the intervention of a third party who prima facie
The exclusion of the deduction entitlement in respect of                      does not fall within the personal scope of the Directive
vehicles and mixed-use conveyances cannot be justified by                     have the effect of altering the classification of a project
the difficulty involved in ascertaining and checking on the                   as a public works contract, or should such a proceeding
actual use to which a vehicle is put; the consequences of the                 be regarded as an evasion of the personal scope of the
use by a taxable person of certain assets of his undertaking                  Directive and incompatible with the aim and purpose of
for business and private purposes arise from the framework                    the Directive ?
of the deduction entitlement laid down in Article 17 ( 5 ) of
the Directive .
                                                                          4 . If a contracting authority establishes undertakings for
                                                                              carrying on commercial activities and holds majority
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977 , p . 1 .
                                                                              holdings in them which enable it to exercise economic
                                                                              control over those undertakings, does the classification
                                                                              as a contracting authority then also apply to those
                                                                              associated undertakings ?
                                                                          5 . If a contracting authority transfers funds which it has
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   earned from special and exclusive rights conferred on it
Bundesvergabeamt by order of that body of 2 February                          to purely commercial undertakings in which it owns a
1996 in the review procedure of ( 1 ) Mannesmann                              majority holding, does that have the effect that,
Anlagenbau Austria AG, (2 ) J.L. Bacon Gesellschaft mbH,                      regardless of the legal position of the associated
( 3 ) Haustechnische Gesellschaft für Sanitär-, Wärme- und                    undertaking, that undertaking as a whole must let itself
Luft-Technische Anlagen GmbH and ( 4 ) Sulzer Infra                           be treated and behave as a contracting authority within
Anlagen- und Gebäudetechnik Gesellschaft mbH v. Strohal                       the meaning of Directive 93/37/EEC ?
                       Rotationsdruck GmbH
                           ( Case C-44/96
                                                                          6 . If a contracting authority which both meets needs in the
                             ( 96/C 95/22 )                                   general interest not having an industrial or commercial
                                                                              character and also carries on commercial activities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        establishes operating installations which are capable of
European Communities by an order the Second Senate                            serving both purposes, is the award of the contract for
of the Bundesvergabeamt ( Federal Award Office ) of                           constructing such operating installations to be classified
2 February 19 96 , which was received at the Court Registry                   as a public works contract within the meaning of
on 14 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the review                  Directive 93/37/EEC, or does Community law contain
procedure of ( 1 ) Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG, ( 2 )                    criteria according to which such an operating
J.L. Bacon Gesellschaft mbH, ( 3 ) Haustechnische                             installation can be classified either as serving public
Gesellschaft fur Sanitar-, Warme- und Luft-Technische                         needs or as serving commercial activities, and if so,
                                                                              which criteria ?
Anlagen GmbH and ( 4 ) Sulzer Infra Anlagen- und Ge
baudetechnik Gesellschaft mbH v. Strohal Rotationsdruck
GmbH on the following questions :                                         7. Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                              No 208 1 /93 ( 2 ) of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation
 1 . Can a provision of a national law, such as Paragraph 3                   ( EEC ) No 2052/88 ( 3 ) on the tasks of the Structural
       of the Staatsdruckereigesetz in the present case, which                Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of
       confers special and exclusive rights on an undertaking,                their activities between themselves and with the
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 95/ 13
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the               Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Bruges, of
      other existing financial instruments make the recipients         6 February 1996, which was received at the Court Registry
      of Community subsidies subject to the review                     on 16 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      procedures within the meaning of Directive                       BVBA Sanders v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance,
      89/665/EEC, even if they themselves are not contracting          VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
      authorities within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive         person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection
      93/37/EEC ?                                                      Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
                                                                       Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
0 ) OJ No L 199 , 1993 , p . 54.                                       person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT
( 2 ) OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p . 5 .                                     Inspectorate on the following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 185 , 1988 , p . 9 .
                                                                       1 . Must Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
                                                                           interpreted as permitting a Member State, instead of
                                                                           refunding to a taxable person a VAT credit for a given
                                                                           tax period, or carrying it forward to a subsequent tax
                                                                           period, to 'withhold' the same by way of protective
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                attachment on the basis of an additional demand in
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January                     respect of an earlier tax period, where that additional
1996 in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken- und                             demand is contested in law and is thus not based on any
             Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger                            definitive entitlement, and where the Member State has
                          ( Case C-45/96 )                                 not obtained authorization pursuant to Article 27 of the
                                                                           VAT Directive ?
                            ( 96/C 95/23 )
                                                                       2 . In the event that Question 1 is answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     affirmative :
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
( Federal Court of Justice ) of 11 January 1996, which was                 do the principle of proportionality enshrined in
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 1996 , for a                 Community law and Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT
preliminary ruling in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken                   Directive permit the Member State to provide :
und Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger on the following
question :                                                                 ( 1 ) that the taxable person may contest the attachment
                                                                                ( as validated by the 'withholding' measure ) only by
where a contract of suretyship is concluded under German                         adducing evidence rebutting the allegations made
law between a financial institution and a natural person
                                                                                by the Treasury in the official report, and not by
                                                                                challenging the actual need for, and urgency of, that
who is not acting in that connection in the course of his trade
                                                                                measure ;
or profession, in order to secure a claim by the financial
institution against a third party in respect of a loan, is it              ( 2 ) that withholding may not be replaced by another
covered by the words 'contracts under which a trader                             form of security nor lifted pending the delivery of
supplies goods or services to a consumer' ( Article 1 ( 1 ) of                   final judgment on the contested demand for
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
                                                                                payment made by the Treasury ?
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises, OJ No L 372 , 31 . 12 . 1985 ,
p. 31 )?
                                                                       Action brought on 21 February 1996 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Beslagrechter of                                    ( Case C-52/96 )
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by order of that
court of 6 February 1996 in the case of BVBA Sanders                                              ( 96/C 95/25
v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT          21 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                Communities, represented by Julian Currall and F. Enrique
person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT                    Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, with an address for
                             Inspectorate                              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                                                                       de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,
                          ( Case C-47/96 )
                                                                       Kirchberg.
                            ( 96/ C 95/24 )
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Beslagrechter ( judge             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures
hearing attachment proceedings ) of the Rechtbank van                      necessary to ensure that officials of the Community


title: Case C-5/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 January 2011 — Criminal Proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 January 2011 — Criminal Proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner
   (Case C-5/11)
   2011/C 103/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

      Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

      Question referred

   Are Articles 34 and 36 TFEU governing the free movement of goods to be interpreted as precluding the criminal offence of aiding and abetting the prohibited distribution of copyright-protected works resulting from the application of national criminal law where, on a cross-border sale of a work that is copyright protected in Germany

               —

               that work is taken to Germany from a Member State of the European Union and de facto power of disposal thereof is transferred in Germany,

               —

               but the transfer of ownership took place in the other Member State in which copyright protection for the work did not exist or was unenforceable?


title: Action brought on 5 November 1997 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-286/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/25
the Merger Regulation. As regards, specifically, the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
geographical allocation of turnover, the applicant states
that a substantial part of the bank's loan portfolios
comprised loans made to Finnish borrowers that were                The applicant, who has also brought in Cases T-235/95 (1)
denominated in foreign currencies and were payable as to           and T-262/97 (2), challenges the inaction of the
interest and capital outside Finland.                              Commission in relation to a complaint, concerning the
                                                                   alleged anti-competitive practices on the part of the
                                                                   General Medical Council (GMC), a statutory body which
                                                                   regulates the medical profession in the territory of the
In relation to the calculation of aggregate turnover for the       United Kingdom. On August 1993 the applicant, a
undertakings concerned for the purposes of the two-thirds          community medical specialist in rheumatology, submitted
rule, the applicant submits that the branches or                   to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Council
subsidiaries of UBF and KOP in London, Luxembourg and              Regulation No 17 an application for a finding that the
Zurich should be regarded as separate undertakings so              GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.
that, unless they also derived two-thirds of their turnover        According to the applicant's complaint, the GMC:
from Finland, the two-thirds test would not be satisfied by
each of the undertakings concerned'.
                                                                   Ð restricts persons holding a Community Medical
                                                                       Specialist Diploma issued pursuant to Council
                                                                       Directive 93/16/EC from having their specialist status
The applicant finally submits that the time taken to
                                                                       publicized in the Medical Register, and
submit the complaint is not unreasonable. First, the
concentration has not been communicated. Secondly, the
Commission's approach disregards the fact that until early         Ð has rules which inhibit direct access to the status of
in 1997 the applicant had no reason to suspect that the                Community Medical Specialist and inhibit advertising
concentration might have a Community dimension.                        by Community Medical Specialists to the public.
(1) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, p. 1.                                  By letter dated 28 November 1995 the applicant sent the
                                                                   Commission a notice pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By letter dated 6 December 1995 the Commission,
                                                                   declared that it was unable to take a formal position
                                                                   within the prescribed period of two months and stated
                                                                   that it preferred to work towards such a position without
                                                                   any specific framework. By letter dated 1 August 1997 the
                                                                   applicant formally requested the Commission to define its
Action brought on 5 November 1997 by Anthony
                                                                   position with regard to its complaint within two months.
Goldstein against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                        (Case T-286/97)                            It follows, according to the applicant, that the conditions
                                                                   laid down in Article 175 were satisfied and that the
                          (98/C 7/68)                              Commission was required within that provision to take a
                                                                   definitive position on the request within two months.
                                                                   Since no reply has been received from the Commission, it
                                                                   must be considered that this obligation was not complied
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   with.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996, p. 19.
An action against the Commission of the European                   (2) OJ C 370, 6. 12. 1997, p. 8.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 November
1997 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St
John Murphy, solicitor, of Merriman White, 3 King's
Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London.
                                                                   Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Regione
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-288/97)
Ð declare that contrary to Article 175 of the EC Treaty                                       (98/C 7/69)
    the Commission failed to define its position on the
    request submitted to it by the applicant pursuant to
    that provision,                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-4/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2016 — J.D. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2016 — J.D. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
   (Case C-4/16)
   (2016/C 111/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: J.D.

      Respondent: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

      Question referred

   Is the term ‘hydropower’ as a renewable energy source, set out in Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 5(3) thereof and recital 30 in the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as relating only to energy produced by a hydroelectric power station using the downward flow of inland surface waters, including rivers, or as relating also to energy produced in a hydroelectric power station (which is not a pure pumped-storage or mixed-power station) sited at the point of discharge of industrial waste water from another plant?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-401/02 (1)

   (2004/C 239/18)
   By order of 2 June 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-401/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-315/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/29

         Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)
   (Case T-315/16)
   (2016/C 287/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Butterfly’

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 221/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and EU trade mark application No 011757549 is rejected;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-99/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart by order of that court of  7 February 2006  in Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel, other parties: 1. President of the Landgericht Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart by order of that court of 7 February 2006 in Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel, other parties: 1. President of the Landgericht Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair
   (Case C-99/06)
   (2006/C 96/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart of 7 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 21 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG and Roland Schabel, other parties: 1. President of the Landgericht Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair on the following question:
   Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that the charges of a notary employed as a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording a transaction covered by that directive constitute taxes for the purposes of that directive where, first, under the relevant national legislation, also notaries who are civil servants may be authorised to practise and are themselves owed the charges in question, and, second, although the notaries who are employed as civil servants have to remit to the Treasury, out of the fees for the recording of transactions in matters of company law covered by that directive, only a fixed reimbursement for expenses in the amount of 15 % of those fees, they must, in respect of other activities, remit to the Treasury charges exceeding a (fixed) reimbursement for expenses, which the State uses to fund its activities.

      (1)  OJ L 156, p. 23.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Case T-120/99 Christina Kik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Article 115 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rules governing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Plea of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
24.11.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 331/19
J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                     Composition), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and K.-D. Borchardt, and N. Khan),                 Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                         H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
W.-D. Plessing, T. Jürgensen and M. Maier) and by RAG                     which it:
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented
by M. Hansen and S. Völcker, lawyers, with an address for                 1.    Dismisses the action;
service in Luxembourg — applications for annulment of
Commission Decisions 1999/270/EC and 1999/299/ECSC of                     2.    Orders the applicant to pay her own costs and those incurred
2 and 22 December 1998 on German aid to the coal industry                       by the defendant;
for 1998 and 1999 (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 14 and L 117, p. 44)
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                   3.    Orders each of the interveners to bear their own costs.
Composition), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Le-
naerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Chris-           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 July 2001, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the actions;
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       by the Commission and the intervener RAG Aktiengesellschaft;
                                                                                of 27 June 2001
3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
                                                                          in Case T-166/99, Luis Fernando Andres de Dios and
( 1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999 and C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                   Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                          (Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen
                                                                          Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council —
                                                                                Action for annulment — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/31)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           of 12 July 2001
in Case T-120/99 Christina Kik v Office for Harmonisation                 In Case T-166/99 Luis Fernando Andres de Dios, residing in
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          Brussels, Belgium, Maria Soledad Garcı́a Retortillo, residing in
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  Cáceres, Spain, Suzanne Kitlas, residing in Brussels, Jacques
                                                                          Verraes, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis,
                                                                          G. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service
(Article 115 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rules govern-                  in Luxembourg, supported by Union syndicale-Bruxelles,
ing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the                      established in Brussels, represented by S. Parmesan, lawyer,
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Plea of                       with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
          illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)                   the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer, F. Anton and
                                                                          A. Bentley) — application for annulment of Council Decision
                          (2001/C 331/30)                                 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed
                                                                          arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                        into the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 1999 L 119,
                                                                          p. 49) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                          composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
In Case T-120/99 Christina Kik, residing in The Hague                     given a judgment on 27 June 2001, in which it:
(Netherlands), represented by G.L. Kooy, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Hellenic              1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Republic (Agents: K. Samoni-Randou and S. Vodina), against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto, J. Miranda                      severally to pay those of the Council;
de Sousa, and J. Bourgeois), supported by the Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) and the Council of the                   3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
European Union (Agents: G. Houttuin and A. Lo Monaco) —
action brought against the decision of the Third Board of                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 65/98-3)


title: Case C-367/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted to firms located in Venice and Chioggia — Reduction of social security contributions — Failure to recover aid within the prescribed period — Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-367/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted to firms located in Venice and Chioggia - Reduction of social security contributions - Failure to recover aid within the prescribed period - Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum))
   (2015/C 371/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato della Stato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-302/09, EU:C:2011:634) before the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission on 21 November 2012, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay a penalty payment of EUR 12 million to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, for every six months of delay in implementing the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-302/09, EU:C:2011:634), from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the judgment in Commission v Italy has been complied with.

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay a lump sum of EUR 30 million to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account.

               4.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014


title: Case C-158/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Article 5 — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Conditions governing the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of that directive)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-158/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Article 5 - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Conditions governing the granting of permits for existing installations - Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of that directive)
   2013/C 156/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Conditions governing the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that such installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not issuing permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, as appropriate, by not reconsidering and, where necessary, by not updating permit conditions, in respect of 13 existing pig-rearing and poultry-rearing installations, and by thereby failing to ensure that all existing installations operate in accordance with Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive by not later than 30 October 2007, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case C-155/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/8

         Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-155/06)
   (2006/C 121/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has failed to adopt all the final measures necessary to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of the Council 96/29 (1) Euratom, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, because of the lack of provisions allowing for appropriate intervention in all situations of lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Title IX of the Directive lays down the obligations of Member States regarding the preparation and implementation of intervention in cases of radiological emergency. Article 53 provides that Member States are responsible for intervention in cases of lasting exposure.
   The United Kingdom authorities have acknowledged that their existing legislation fails to effect complete transposition of the directive, in so far as it does not provide for measures in all cases where a situation of radioactive contamination is identified. The complaint which provided the impetus for the present procedure exposed the fact that it is not possible to identify and to take measures against lasting exposure for past activities for which a licence had never been issued, intervention only being possible where exposure can be linked to a given past activity carried out on land where possible radioactive contamination is now being identified.

      (1)  OJ L 314, 4.12.1996, p. 20.


title: Joined Cases C-556/15 and C-22/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova and Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (C-556/15), SC Hidroelectrica SA (C-22/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Participation of a company with a majority public shareholding in an increase in the share capital of a company in which the State is the sole shareholder or in the capital formation for a State-owned commercial company — Questions of a hypothetical nature — Insufficient information regarding the factual context — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/12

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova and Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (C-556/15), SC Hidroelectrica SA (C-22/16)
   (Joined Cases C-556/15 and C-22/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Participation of a company with a majority public shareholding in an increase in the share capital of a company in which the State is the sole shareholder or in the capital formation for a State-owned commercial company - Questions of a hypothetical nature - Insufficient information regarding the factual context - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 283/16)
   Language of the cases: Romanian

      Referring courts

   Curtea de Apel Craiova, Tribunalul Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

      Defendants: Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (C-556/15), SC Hidroelectrica SA (C-22/16)

      Operative part of the order

   The requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Court of Appeal, Craiova, Romania), by decision of 13 October 2015, and by the Tribunalul București (District Court, Bucharest, Romania), by decision of 3 July 2015, are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

      OJ C 118, 4.4.2016


title: Case T-274/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/38

         Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
   (Case T-274/15)
   (2015/C 279/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium); and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decisions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that, by adopting and implementing the contested decisions, the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and their right to the inviolability of private premises and that it breached the principles of sound administration and proportionality.


title: Case C-109/06: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-109/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/56)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-523/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 November 2010 — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 November 2010 — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH
   (Case C-523/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wintersteiger AG

      Defendant: Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the case of an alleged infringement by a person established in another Member State of a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised through the use of a keyword (AdWord) identical to that trade mark in an internet search engine which offers its services under various country-specific top-level domains, is the phrase ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (‘Brussels I’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that:

                           1.1.

                           jurisdiction is established only if the keyword is used on the search engine website the top-level domain of which is that of the State of the court seised;

                           1.2.

                           jurisdiction is established only if the search engine website on which the keyword is used can be accessed in the State of the court seised;

                           1.3.

                           jurisdiction is dependent on the satisfaction of other requirements additional to the accessibility of the website?

               2.

               If Question 1.3 is answered in the affirmative:
               Which criteria are to be used to determine whether jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is established where a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised is used as an AdWord on a search engine website with a country-specific top-level domain different from that of the State of the court seised?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.