title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten by order of that tribunal of 8 July 1997 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v. Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft (Case C-258/97)

text:
6 . 9 . 97            I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 271 /9
2 . If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is                 In view of the failure to fulfil obligations, give an
      Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning                  official explanation or any reply, the company must
      that such aid is compatible with the common market ?                   take legal action before the Court in order to obtain
                                                                             compensation in damages consisting in the amount set
                                                                             out in the invoice and interest thereon as from two
                                                                             months after the date of the invoice, subject to further
                                                                             interest accruing in the meantime .
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by E-Quattro, società in                ( b ) Failure       to    continue         the  contractual
nome collettivo, having its seat in Laveno-Mombello,                         relationship
Varese, Italy, against Commission of the European
                             Communities                                     The contract concluded between the parties provides
                          ( Case C-257/97)                                   for, at most, a duration of two years, although
                                                                             performance is divided into two stages .
                            ( 97/C 271/13 )
                                                                             Although the Commission reserved the right not to
An action against the Commission of the European                             proceed to the second stage, it is nevertheless true that
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       such a right may not be indiscriminate or arbitrary
the European Communities on 16 July 1997 by E-                               and in any event, account must be taken of the
Quattro, società in nome collettivo, having its seat in                      circumstances in which it is exercised .
Laveno-Mombello, Varese, Italy, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the                   Finally, the applicant is of the view that the
Corte di Cassazione ( Court of Cassation ) of the Italian                    termination in question must be justified, notified to
Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                       the parties in good time and in circumstances such as
the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias                              not to prejudice the legitimate expectations that the
Hardt .
                                                                             contract would proceed as normal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 . order the Commission to make good the damage
      suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
      of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
      services set out in the unpaid invoice;                          Verwaltungssenat fur Kärnten by order of that tribunal of
                                                                       8 July 1997 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure
                                                                       Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v.
2 . order, further, the Commission to make good the
                                                                                Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft
      damage caused to the company by the unjustified
      termination of the contract and by its notification on                                    Case C-258/97 )
      the last possible date;                                                                    ( 97/C 271 /14 )
3.    the whole of the above to be in the amount set out in
      the application or together with interest accruing from          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the due date to the date of actual payment;                      European Communities by an order of the Unabhängiger
                                                                       Verwaltungssenat fur Kärnten ( Independent Administrative
                                                                       Senate for Carinthia ) of 8 July 1997, which was received
4. order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings .               at the Court Registry on 17 July 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v.
                                                                       Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft         on      the
                                                                       following questions :
( a ) Payment for the services provided
                                                                        1 . Is Article 2 ( 8 ) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
      Article 7 ( 2 ) of the contract stipulates that the                    21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
      Commission is to effect payment upon presentation of                   regulations and administrative provisions relating to
      the invoice or within two months from the date of
                                                                             the application of review procedures to the award of
      receipt thereof.                                                       public supply and public works contracts ( ! ) to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that the Unabhängiger
      The services in respect of the first stage were                        Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten fulfils the conditions for
      completed in March 1997 and the invoice for the                        a body responsible for review procedures with respect
      balance was sent on 6 March 1997 .                                     to services ?
      Already four months have elapsed without the amount              2 . Are these or other provisions of Council Directive 89/
      set out in the invoice having been paid and without                    665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations
      the slightest official explanation or reply.                           and administrative provisions relating to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 271 / 10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 9 . 97
       application of review procedures to the award of                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Chamber
       public supply and public works contracts, from which                 of the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal ), Douai, by
       there derives an individual right to have review                     judgment of that court of 27 June 1997 in the case of Karl
        proceedings conducted before authorities or courts                                  Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille
        which comply with the provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of                                        ( Case C-261 /97 )
        Directive 89/665/EEC, to be interpreted as being
        sufficiently precise and specific that, in the event of                                         ( 97/C 271/15 )
        non-transposition of the directive in question by the
        Member State, an individual may successfully assert                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        that legal right against the Member State in legal                  European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
        proceedings ?                                                       ( Social Chamber), Douai, of 27 June 1997, received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Karl Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille on the
3 . Are the provisions of Article 41 of Directive 92/50/
        EEC (2 ), in conjunction with Directive 89/665/EEC,                 following question:
        which are the basis of an individual 's right to have
        review proceedings conducted, to be interpreted as                  Is Article 14a (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
        meaning that a national court with the characteristics              14 June 1971 ( J ) to be interpreted as meaning that, in
        of the Unabhangiger Verwaltungssenat fur Karnten                    order to be exempt from paying contributions in France,
        may, when conducting review proceedings on the basis                an independent worker employed in two Member States
        of national provisions such as Paragraph 59 et seq. of              and living in another Member State must be registered
        the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz and the                        with a compulsory scheme for self-employed workers in
        regulations relating thereto, disregard those provisions            that other Member State ?
        if they prevent the carrying out of review proceedings
        under the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz for the                  (') On the application of social security schemes to employed
        award of service contracts, and therefore nevertheless                   persons and their families moving within the Community ( OJ,
        conduct review proceedings in accordance with                            English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ).
        Section 8 of the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz ?
4 . Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case ( 3 ),
        with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/EEC, to
        be classified as services coming under Annex IA,
        Category No 12, of Directive 92/50/EEC ( architectural              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
        services; engineering services and integrated                       Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
        engineering services; urban planning and landscape                  of 15—17 April 1997 in the case of Societa Appia Sri v.
        architectural services; related scientific and technical            ( 1 ) Comune di Cagliari and ( 2 ) Società Cagliari Calcio
       consulting services; technical testing and analysis                                                    SpA
        services )?                                                                                ( Case C-264/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 / 16 )
5 . Are the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC to be
       interpreted as satisfying the conditions laid down in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       the judgment in Case 41 /74 Van Duyn ( paragraph 12 )                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
       for the direct applicability of a Community directive,               Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
       with the result that services coming under Annex IA of               Sardinia ) of 15—17 April 1997, received at the Court
       the directive are to be awarded under the procedure                  Registry on 21 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       therein mentioned, or are the relevant provisions of                 case of Societa Appia Sri v. ( 1 ) Comune di Cagliari
       the directive in connection with the services mentioned
                                                                            (Municipality of Cagliari ) and (2 ) Societa Cagliari Calcio
       in Annex IA capable of fulfilling the conditions laid                SpA on the following questions :
       down in the said case ?
                                                                            whether Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50 (*) and the
(') OJ L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 33 .                                     provisions therein referred to require a public
( 2 ) OJ L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p. 1 .                                      administration ( in this case a Municipality ), which intends
(3 ) Consulting engineers' services for technical advice and
      planning and the planning and processing works for the                granting a concession in respect of facilities ( in this case a
      construction of a children's hospital ( parent and child centre )     municipal stadium ) to third parties that are considered to
      at the Landeskrankenhaus Klagenfurt with the corresponding            be particularly well qualified, with a view to bringing
      out-patient facilities, operating theatre, x-ray laboratory and       them under single management, to entrust the services
      five children 's wards and a children's surgical ward with a          covered by that directive ( in this case advertising services )
      total of 132 beds and a usable area of c . 8 100 m2; planning         to be carried out within the facilities to which the
      services for the sanitary, heating and air installations with air     concession relates by means of the procedures laid down
      conditioning and the electrical and high and low-voltage              by the abovementioned Article 8 , without giving
      current installations, structural and constructional engineering
      servicds, and planning services for the medical installations.
                                                                            preference to the concessionaire; if the Court should
                                                                            consider that in such circumstances the Administration is
                                                                            required to comply with Article 8 of Directive 92/50, it is
                                                                            necessary to ascertain whether compliance with that


title: Case T-258/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Axa Mediterranean Holding v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/39

         Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Axa Mediterranean Holding v Commission
   (Case T-258/15)
   (2015/C 245/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Axa Mediterranean Holding, S.A (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, D. Armesto Macías and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as state aid which is incompatible with the interior market;

               —

               annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

               —

               annul Article 4(2)(3)(4) and (5) of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain by Article 4(2) of the contested decision in the same terms as in the first and second decisions; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in the present proceedings is the same as in cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and Others v Commission.

   The pleas in law and the main arguments put forward are similar to those relied on in those cases.


title: Case T-181/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/33

         Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-181/05)
   (2005/C 171/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Citicorp, established in New York (USA), and Citibank, N.A., established in New York (USA), represented by V. v. Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Polhmann, lawyers.
   Citi, S.L. established in Algete, Madrid (Spain), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and designs) of 1 March 2005 in case R 173/2004-1;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Citi, S.L.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The figurative mark CITI for services in class 36 (customs agencies, property valuers, real estate agents, evaluation and administration of house contents)- application No 1 430 750

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Citicorp and Citibank N.A.

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Their respective national and Community, word and figurative marks for services in class 36 (financial services and real estate services)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the Community trade mark application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, acceptance of the opposition in respect of ‘property valuers, real estate agents, evaluation and administration of house contents’ and rejection of the opposition in respect of ‘customs agencies’

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and the right to be heard, Violation of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and violation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-120/14P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2014 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10 Christoph Klein v European Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/12

         Appeal brought on 29 March 2014 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10 Christoph Klein v European Commission
   (Case C-120/14P)
   2014/C 184/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt und M. Ahlt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10;

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt a decision in the safeguard clause procedure in progress since 1998 concerning the contested medicinal products, the Commission has infringed its obligations under Directive 93/42 and European Union law and has, as a result, caused the appellant direct damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages of an amount still to be calculated in respect of the damage caused to the appellant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative: set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 in Case T–309/10 and refer the proceedings back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By incorrectly applying the provisions relating to the time-barring of actions in matters arising from the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the General Court infringed Article 46 of the Statute, in so far as it failed to take account of the fact that a successful application for legal aid which, for the purpose of the interruption of the limitation period, amounts to the bringing of proceedings.
   Next, the General Court infringed Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42 (1) in so far as it concluded that those two articles are mutually exclusive. A correct interpretation is, on the other hand, that both provisions are concurrently applicable. Furthermore, the Court fails to provide sufficient grounds for its conclusion.
   Further, the General Court infringed European Union law in so far as it erred in law by failing to classify the proceedings brought by the German authorities as safeguard clause proceedings.
   The more than 10-year duration of the proceedings before the Commission infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Principle of sound administration. The General Court erred in law by failing to take those infringements into consideration.
   Finally, the proceedings before the Court contain breaches of procedural rules. Several documents produced in support of the appellant’s arguments were not taken into consideration. In addition, the statement and legal arguments of the European Parliament, which the appellant adopted, were simply ignored.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169).


title: Case T-378/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/51

         Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-378/08)
   (2008/C 285/91)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L.Inez Fernandes and J. de Oliveira, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, a declaration that the notice of payment MARKT/C2/PMS/bmgD(2008) 13692 issued by the Director-General of Directorate-General Internal Market and Services of 15 July 2008 under the heading ‘demand for payment of the periodic penalty payable by the Portuguese Republic in compliance with the judgment given in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portuguese Republic’ is invalid;

               —

               alternatively, a declaration that that notice is invalid, in so far as its effects extend beyond 29 January 2008;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs or, if the Court of First Instance should reduce the amount of the periodic penalty, an order that each party should bear its own costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Portuguese Republic claims that it has fully complied with the judgments of the Court of Justice by adopting Law No 67/2007 expressly repealing Decree-Law No 48051.
   The Portuguese Republic further claims that the Director-General of DG Internal Market and Services had no power to adopt the contested measure, which failed to have regard to the Portuguese Republic's rights of the defence, fails to state the reasons on which it is based and was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements.


title: Joined Cases C-124/13 and C-125/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 December 2015 — European Parliament, European Commission v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 — Choice of legal basis — Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU — Policy decision — Long-term plan for cod stocks)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 December 2015 — European Parliament, European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-124/13 and C-125/13) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 - Choice of legal basis - Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU - Policy decision - Long-term plan for cod stocks))
   (2016/C 038/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, L.G. Knudsen and R. Kaškina, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, K. Banks and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon, A. de Gregorio Merino and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Nowacki and A. Miłkowska, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1243/2012 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed 12 months starting from 1 January of the year following the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

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

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-24/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.
   (Case C-24/16)
   (2016/C 145/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nintendo Co. Ltd

      Defendants: BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               In connection with a trial to enforce claims under a Community design, can the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction with respect to a defendant is based solely on Article 79(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (2) on the basis that this defendant, which is domiciled in another Member State, supplied the defendant domiciled in the pertinent Member State with goods that may infringe intellectual property rights, adopt measures against the first mentioned defendant that are applicable throughout the EU and extend beyond the supply relationships on which jurisdiction is based?

               2.

               Is Regulation No 6/2002, particularly Article 20(1)(c), to be interpreted as meaning that a third party may depict a Community design for commercial purposes if it intends to sell accessory items for the right holder’s goods corresponding to the Community design? If so, what criteria apply to this?

               3.

               For the purposes of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, (3) how is the place ‘in which the act of infringement was committed’ to be determined in cases in which the infringer

                           a)

                           offers goods that infringe a Community design on a website and that website is also directed at Member States other than the one in which the person damaged by the infringement is domiciled, and/or

                           b)

                           has goods that infringe a Community design shipped to a Member State other than the one in which it is domiciled?

         Is Article 15(a) and (g) of Regulation No 864/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that the law determined in this manner is also applicable to participatory acts of other persons?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.


title: Case C-93/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia (Agriculture — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Common agricultural policy — Aid — Administrative law disputes — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — National criterion — Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/28

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
   (Case C-93/12) (1)

   (Agriculture - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Common agricultural policy - Aid - Administrative law disputes - Determination of the court with jurisdiction - National criterion - Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
   2013/C 225/45
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov

      Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of equivalence — Aid scheme of the common agricultural policy — National procedural rule providing that administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the common agricultural policy fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act is located, but that similar disputes of a domestic nature fall within the jurisdiction of the court in whose judicial district the agricultural land in question is located.

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude a national rule of jurisdiction such as that in Article 133(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks), which results in conferring on a single court all disputes relating to decisions of a national authority responsible for the payment of agricultural support under the European Union common agricultural policy, provided that actions intended to ensure the safeguarding of the rights which individuals derive from European Union law are not conducted in less advantageous conditions than those provided for in respect of actions intended to protect the rights derived from any aid schemes for farmers established under national law, and that jurisdiction rule does not cause individuals procedural problems in terms, inter alia, of the duration of the proceedings, such as to render the exercise of the rights derived from European Union law excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case C-57/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Marina da Conceição Pacheco Almeida v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP, Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Marina da Conceição Pacheco Almeida v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP, Instituto da Segurança Social, IP
   (Case C-57/13)
   2013/C 108/35
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Marina da Conceição Pacheco Almeida

      Respondent: Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP, Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

      Question referred

   Is European Union law, in the specific context of a guarantee covering wage claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency, in particular Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 80/987/EEC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which guarantees only claims falling due in the six months preceding the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the employer, even where the employee has brought an action against that employer before the Tribunal do Trabalho (Labour Court) with a view to obtaining a judicial determination of the amount outstanding and an enforcement order to recover those sums?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. (OJ 1980 L 283 p. 23).


title: Case T-228/09: Action brought on 11 June 2009 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/62

         Action brought on 11 June 2009 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.)
   (Case T-228/09)
   2009/C 180/114
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: United States Polo Association (Lexington, United States) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Textiles CMG, SA (Onteniente, Valencia, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 886/2008-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should the other party before the Board of Appeal intervene in the proceedings, order it to pay its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “U.S. POLO ASSN.”, for goods in classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27

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

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration of the word mark “POLO-POLO” for goods in class 24; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “POLO-POLO” for goods in classes 24, 25 and 39

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-62/08: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — UDV North America Inc v Brandtraders NV (Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d) — Right of the proprietor of a registered mark to prevent the use by a third party of a sign which is identical to the mark — Concept of use — Use of a sign which is identical to the mark by a trade intermediary in its business papers — Intermediary acting in its own name but on behalf of a vendor)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/16

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — UDV North America Inc v Brandtraders NV
   (Case C-62/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d) - Right of the proprietor of a registered mark to prevent the use by a third party of a sign which is identical to the mark - Concept of ‘use’ - Use of a sign which is identical to the mark by a trade intermediary in its business papers - Intermediary acting in its own name but on behalf of a vendor)
   2009/C 113/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UDV North America Inc

      Defendant: Brandtraders NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 9(1) and 2(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Right of the proprietor of a mark to oppose its use by a third party — Concept of use of the mark.

      Operative part of the order

   The concept of ‘use’ for the purpose of Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark covers a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a trade intermediary, which is acting in its own name but on behalf of the vendor and is thus not an interested party in relation to trade in goods in which it is itself a contractual party, uses, in its business papers, a sign which is identical with a Community trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the mark is registered.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-523/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — Italmobiliare and Others v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/53

         Action brought on 10 September 2015 — Italmobiliare and Others v Commission
   (Case T-523/15)
   (2015/C 354/64)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Italmobiliare SpA (Milan, Italy), Sirap-Gema SpA (Verolanuova, Italy), Sirap France SAS (Noves, France), Petruzalek GmbH (Tattendorf, Austria), Petruzalek kft (Budapest, Hungary), Petruzalek s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), Petruzalek s.r.o. (Břeclav, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and A. Bardanzellu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               first, obtain of its own motion an expert report in respect of the economic analysis of the case;

               —

               annul the decision to the extent that it considered that the benefit of immunity from the penalties referred to in the Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (‘the Notice’) applies to Linpac;

               —

               annul the decision in so far as it also attributed the conduct penalised to Italmobiliare, and ordered it, jointly and severally, to pay the fines;

               —

               reduce the amounts of the penalties imposed;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision also contested in Case T-522/15, CCPL and Others v Commission.
   In support of that action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the Notice and the principle of equal treatment in so far as the Commission granted immunity to Linpac even though the necessary conditions set out in the Notice itself were not fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty, the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the principle of presumption of innocence referred to in Articles 6(2) and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the fundamental right of property referred to in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, Article 14 of the Convention and Articles 17 and 21 of the Charter, as well as infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, in so far as the Commission erred in considering Italmobiliare jointly and severally responsible as the parent company for the conduct of companies under its control.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Guidelines’) and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in relation to determining the following elements/parameters when calculating the penalties: (i) sales value; (ii) amount according to severity; (iii) entry fee; (iv) adjustments to the basic amount (in particular, failure to take into consideration the crisis facing the sector); (v) the maximum statutory threshold under Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and (vi) insufficient reduction in penalties owing to the length of the proceedings; and finally infringement of Article 101 TFEU of the guidelines and failure to state reasons in relation to the failure to grant the request to apply point 35 of those guidelines.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: the applicants claim that, on the basis of Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 the General Court of the European Union should exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and, even if the above pleas in law are rejected, replace the Commission’s assessment with its own and, in any event, reduce all the fines imposed in the decision.


title: Case C-344/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 24 July 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Tomasz Rubach

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 24 July 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Tomasz Rubach
   (Case C-344/08)
   (2008/C 272/17)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Prosecuting authority: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Kościanie (District Prosecutor's Office, Kościan)

      Defendant: Tomasz Rubach
   Question referred
   How should Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) be properly interpreted, that is to say, how, under Community law, may a keeper of animals listed in Annex B (which are not amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals) prove satisfactorily that his specimens were acquired or introduced into the Community in accordance with the legislation in force with regard to wild fauna and flora in the case where the provisions of national law do not govern those matters?

      (1)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.


title: Case T-262/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/27

         Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-262/12)
   2012/C 243/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2), in so far as the measures adopted through such legal acts apply to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its rights to protection of its property and reputation.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)


title: Case F-1/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Staff Case — Officials — Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure — Statement of pleas and arguments — Time-limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/72

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-1/08) (1)

   (Staff Case - Officials - Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure - Statement of pleas and arguments - Time-limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/133)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee not to promote the applicant to Grade A*11 pursuant to the 2005 promotion year and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 68.


title: Case T-47/09: Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/18

         Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM
   (Case T-47/09)
   2009/C 102/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch (Mainz, Germany) (represented by V. Töbelmann and A. Piltz, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in Case R 1094/2008-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘diegesellschafter.de’ for services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 4 606 372)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) NO 40/94, (1) since the marks cited have the required distinctive character and there is no requirement to keep the mark free.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-275/07: Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Ebro Puleva v OHIM — Berenguel (BRILLO'S)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/13

         Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Ebro Puleva v OHIM — Berenguel (BRILLO'S)
   (Case T-275/07)
   (2007/C 235/24)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Ebro Puleva, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Luis Berenguel, S.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 21 May 2007 in case No R 493/2006-2 (concerning opposition proceedings No B 705 790).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: LUIS BERENGUEL, S.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BRILLO'S’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 31 (application No 2.984.995).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish figurative mark ‘brillante’ (mark No 922.772) for products in class 30 and the Spanish figurative mark ‘brillante’ (mark No 2.413.459) for goods in class 29.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), inasmuch as it found that the signs in conflict are phonetically, conceptually and visually different.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-97/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de Rĳksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

text:
24.5.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/3
2.     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                        2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
                                                                                90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
                                                                                or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
                                                                                and-mouth disease?
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member
—      Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.                   State with regard to taking supplementary national
       The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC                      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
       into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the                  511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
       interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
       is to prevail is not to apply in the context of the
       procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive               (1 ) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
       (prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which         (2 ) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
       consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
       go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
       obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
       by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
       according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;
—      incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
       by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
       Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
       Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered         Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
       by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold             of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
       restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection        Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
       of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller                          voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees
       or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
       protection only for certain types of contract and only
                                                                                (Case C-97/03)
       where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
       tion prohibited by the Directive.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/06)
( 1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
     consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
                                                                           voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
                                                                           Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                           between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                      Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court                    questions:
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
                         van Vee en Vlees                                  1.    May a Member State derive from Community law the
                                                                                power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
                                                                                being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
                           (Case C-96/03)                                        virus?
                          (2003/C 124/05)                                  2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
                                                                                90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
                                                                                or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
                                                                                and-mouth disease?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member
                                                                                State with regard to taking supplementary national
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor                       511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
1.     May a Member State derive from Community law the                    (2 ) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
       power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
       being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
       virus?


title: Case C-28/01: Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 61/12                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.2.2001
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the         Pleas in law and main arguments
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
      trative measures necessary in order to comply with
      Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the               Although, under Article 3(k) of the (former version of the) EC
      marketing of propagating material of ornamental                 Treaty, the activities of the Community include a policy in the
      plants (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to         sphere of the environment, an environmental policy forms
      comply with its obligations under Article 19 of that            part of the task of establishing a common market, as described
      directive;                                                      in Article 2 of the (former version of the) EC Treaty, only in so
                                                                      far as the achievement of the tasks in question is designed to
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.           promote ‘growth respecting the environment’. It follows from
                                                                      this that, in the implementation of Community policies,
                                                                      reasonable regard must be had to environmental aspects, but
                                                                      it does not follow that environmental considerations must be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       given precedence over the implementation of the other policies
                                                                      specified. For the purposes of the present case, this means that,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           in the context of the award of a public service contract, lengthy
Case C-26/01.                                                         transportation routes, or the avoidance of such routes, may
                                                                      not constitute a factor the effect of which is totally to preclude
                                                                      from the outset, by reference to an environmental argument,
(1) OJ L 226 of 13.8.1998, p. 16.                                     the issuing of an invitation to tender for the provision of the
                                                                      services in question and thereby to create an obstacle to trade
                                                                      in services within the Community. Consequently, the City of
                                                                      Braunschweig was not entitled, by having recourse to an
                                                                      environmental argument, illegally to evade the duty imposed
                                                                      by Community law to issue a Community-wide invitation to
                                                                      tender for a contract for refuse disposal.
                                                                      It is irrelevant that the German Government has conceded that
Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission                   there has been an infringement of the Community rules
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                governing the award of public contracts and that the German
                         lic of Germany                               authorities concerned have been instructed to comply with the
                                                                      provisions of EC law governing the award of public contracts,
                                                                      since, by maintaining the contract and continuing to apply it,
                         (Case C-28/01)
                                                                      the City of Braunschweig is persisting in its infringement of
                                                                      Community law.
                         (2001/C 61/21)
                                                                      (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Josef Christian Schieferer, of the Legal Service of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
(1) declare that, by virtue of the fact that the City of
      Braunschweig awarded a contract for refuse disposal by
      negotiated procedure without prior publication of a                                       (Case C-29/01)
      contract notice, notwithstanding that the criteria laid
      down in Article 11(3) of Directive 92/50/EE (1) for an                                    (2001/C 61/22)
      award by negotiated procedure without a Community-
      wide invitation to tender were not fulfilled, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      obligations in respect of the award of public service           the Court of Justice on 24 January 2001 by the Commission
      contracts under Article 8 and Article 11(3)(c) of that          of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
      directive;                                                      Jordana, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-500/12: Action brought on 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/26

         Action brought on 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-500/12)
   2013/C 26/52
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 amending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2011/18/EU had to be transposed expired on 31 December 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 57, p. 21.


title: Case T-432/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — France v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Fruit and vegetables — Conditions for recognition of producers’ organisations)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — France v Commission
   (Case T-432/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Fruit and vegetables - Conditions for recognition of producers’ organisations)
   2009/C 282/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, A.L. During, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic for producers’ organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.01.2008.


title: Case C-313/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/18

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-313/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 96/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ 2004 L 146, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-602/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2012 by Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-172/09: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/6

         Appeal brought on 20 December 2012 by Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-172/09: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-602/12 P)
   2013/C 101/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin, V. Akritidis, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the seventh chamber of the General Court of 10 October 2012 in Case T-172/09, Gem-Year and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council.

               2.

               Accept, by giving a final judgment itself,

                           —

                           the third plea in law of the application, concerning the absence of injury suffered by the Community industry, in breach of Article 3 of the basic Regulation (1); and

                           —

                           the seventh plea in law concerning the illegal countervailing of a subsidy through the rejection of market economy treatment, in breach of Regulation No 2026/97 (2) and Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
                           or, in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court.

               3.

               Order the Council and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

               Firstly, in view of the facts before the General Court, it is clear that there is no evidence that the Union fasteners industry was suffering injury caused by dumped imports from China, in the sense of Article 3 (2), (5) and (6) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation (3). This first ground is divided into the following two parts:

                           (i)

                           The General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it when it considered that the profit margin achieved by the Union fasteners industry during the period under consideration (from 1 January 2003 until 30 September 2007) was negatively affected, in a material way, by dumped imports from China; whereas the evidence in the file shows that profits fluctuated during that period, and were at their second highest during the last year (4.4 %), which is also when dumped imports from China were the highest, and were close to their maximum historical level of 4.7 % (in 2004), which is just below the target profit (5 %) used by the Commission to calculate the underselling margin.

                           (ii)

                           The evidence before the Court depicts a growing and more prosperous Union industry, notably during the investigation period. It does not depict a case of material injury but rather a case of a hypothetical missed opportunity to take full advantage of the growing domestic EU market. By deciding on this basis that the EU Institutions were right to consider that there was material injury caused by dumped imports, the General Court erred in the legal categorisation of the facts it had established, so that Article 3 (2), (5) and (6) of the basic Regulation was not applied properly.

               Secondly, the General Court erred in law when it considered that a claim for market economy treatment under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation could be rejected on the basis of a finding that an upstream industry was subsidised. This amounts to the countervailing of these subsidies otherwise than following an investigation initiated under Council Regulation no 2026/97 (the then applicable basic anti-subsidy Regulation). This is an illegal interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, and a breach of Council Regulation No 2026/97.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
   OJ L 56, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community
   OJ L 288, p. 1

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
   OJ L 343, p. 51


title: Case C-569/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 December 2014  — Jordi Carne Hidalgo and Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc, S.A.

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Jordi Carne Hidalgo and Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc, S.A.
   (Case C-569/14)
   (2015/C 046/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jordi Carne Hidalgo and Anna Aracil Gracia

      Defendant: Catalunya Banc, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does Article 43 of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, which precludes the court proposing to the parties a possible stay of civil proceedings when another court or tribunal has referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers?

               2)

               Does Article 721.2 of the LEC, which precludes the court adopting or proposing of its own motion the adoption of precautionary measures in individual actions in which it is claimed that a general condition is void because unfair, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers?

               3)

               Ought not any precautionary measures that might be adopted, either of the court’s own motion or at the request of one or other of the parties, in proceedings in which an individual action is brought, to have effect until final judgment shall have been given either in the individual action or in a collective action that could interfere with the bringing of individual actions, in order to ensure the adequate and effective means provided for in Article 7 of the Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-129/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic
   (Case C-129/14)
   2014/C 151/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

      Party to the main proceedings

   Zoran Spasic

      Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) (1) compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as it subjects the application of the ne bis in idem principle to the condition that if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party?

               2.

               Is the abovementioned condition in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement also satisfied, if only one part (here: a fine) of two independent parts of the outstanding penalty imposed in the State which is the sentencing Contracting Party (here: a custodial sentence and a fine) has been enforced?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19.


title: Case T-231/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Greece v Commission (Action for annulment — Common diplomatic mission in Abuja (Nigeria) — Recovery of a debt by offsetting — Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and No 2342/2002 — Principle of good faith in public international law)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-231/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common diplomatic mission in Abuja (Nigeria) - Recovery of a debt by offsetting - Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and No 2342/2002 - Principle of good faith in public international law)
   (2007/C 56/50)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and V. Kyriazopoulos, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, Agents)
   Re:
   Claim for annulment of the act of 10 March 2004 by which the Commission proceeded to recovery by offsetting of sums due from the Hellenic Republic following its participation in building projects for the diplomatic mission of the Commission and several Member States in Abuja (Nigeria)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the removal of the opinion of the Council's Legal Service of 26 June 1998, submitted by the Hellenic Republic as annex 12 to its application, from the case-file;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004 (formerly C-189/04).


title: Case C-125/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark — Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union — Geographical extent of the reputation)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV
   (Case C-125/14) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark - Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union - Geographical extent of the reputation))
   (2015/C 354/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iron & Smith kft

      Defendant: Unilever NV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof.

               2)

               If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case C-108/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki
   (Case C-108/16)
   (2016/C 156/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Paweł Dworzecki

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the following concepts, used in Article 4a(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1)

                           —

                           ‘in due time …was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’
                           and

                           —

                           ‘in due time … by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’
                           autonomous concepts of EU law?

               2.

               If so:

                           – a.

                           how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and

                           – b.

                           does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:

                                       —

                                       according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person;

                                       —

                                       it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person;

                                       —

                                       it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial,

                     fall under one of those two autonomous concepts?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).