title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-332/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fishing — Conservation and management of resources — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3760/92 and 2847/93 — Measures of control of fishing activities)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-332/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fishing - Conservation and management of resources - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3760/92 and 2847/93 - Measures of control of fishing activities)
   (2005/C 182/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-332/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and A.-M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and M.J. Policarpo) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 29 July 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, in respect of the fishing years 1994 to 1996,

                           —

                           to adopt appropriate rules for the use of the quotas allocated to it,

                           —

                           to ensure compliance with Community legislation in the field of conservation, by means of sufficient supervision of fishing activities and adequate inspection of the fishing fleet and of the unloading and recording of catches,

                           —

                           to impose a provisional prohibition of fishing by vessels flying its flag or registered in its territory when the quota allocated to it was deemed to be exhausted, and by having finally prohibited fishing only when its quota had already been greatly exceeded,

                           —

                           to ensure the effective operation of a validation system including verification by cross-checking data and monitoring of data by means of a computerised database,

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the management and control of the above fishing quotas relating to the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, under Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture and Articles 2, 19(1) and (2) and 21(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case C-193/08: Order of the President of the Court of 3 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter, interested party: Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter, interested party: Regierungspräsidium Freiburg
   (Case C-193/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/63

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case T-109/15: Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/64

         Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission
   (Case T-109/15)
   (2015/C 138/83)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany), Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Stolberg, Germany), Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Herzogenrath, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, Rechtsanwälte)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 25 November 2014 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
               The applicants submit that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge is not aid, since State resources were neither granted nor renounced. The reduction of the EEG-surcharge is also not made selectively. In addition, it does not distort competition and also does not affect trade in the internal market.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU
               Should — contrary to what the applicants submit — aid exist, the applicants take the view that the defendant was in any event not entitled to require recovery pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU. This is because the reduction of the EEG-surcharge does not constitute new aid, since the previous rules in respect of it, which were identical in content in fundamental aspects, had already been approved by the defendant in 2002.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU
               The applicants also submit that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In this respect, the defendant should not have assessed the facts examined by it on the basis of its Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, which were published only on 28 June 2014. Instead, it should have applied the guidelines published in 2008. Taking the 2008 standard as a basis, the defendant would not have been entitled to reach a conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU
               Lastly, the applicants submit that, by adopting the contested decision in a procedure concerning new aid, the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU. As the defendant had approved the rules preceding the EEG 2012, it should have taken a decision in a procedure concerning existing aid and not in a procedure concerning new aid.


title: Action brought on 26 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom (Case C-306/95)

text:
11 . 11 . 95         fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 299/ 13
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Mons, of 21 September                 provisions necessary to comply with the directives referred
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                     to in the conclusions of the Commission .
26 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Universite Catholique de Louvain ( Catholic University of              (') Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing
Louvain ) v. Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez on the                     Community measures for the control of avian influenza ( OJ No
following questions :                                                        L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November              1990
'Do supplementary family allowances which are calculated                     concerning public health and animal health problems affecting
                                                                             the production and placing on the market of rabbit meat and
on a flat-rate basis according to the number of children                     farmed game meat ( OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 41 ).
concerned and which an individual employer pays to his
employees , either under the terms of a collective labour
agreement or on a voluntary, unilateral basis, constitute pay
within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?
In the event that the first question is answered in the                Action brought on 27 September 1995 by the Kingdom of
affirmative, if an employer infringes the rule of equal                the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
treatment for men and women contained in that provision ,                                             Communities
are the employees affected entitled under Community law                                            ( Case C-308/95 )
to claim payment of arrears of supplementary family
allowances as from 8 April 1976 , in order to ensure that the                                        ( 95/C 299/22 )
period in respect of which they may bring an action is the
same as that for a comparable right of action under Belgian            An action against the Commission of the European
law ?'                                                                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 27 September 1995 by the
                                                                       Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J. S. van der
                                                                       Oosterkamp and M. A. Fierstra, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands
                                                                       Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo .
Action brought on 26 September 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United                         The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court
                             Kingdom                                   should :
                        ( Case C-306/95 )
                          ( 95/C 299/21 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 28 July 1995
                                                                             concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
                                                                             projects co-financed prior to 1989 by the European
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before                       Regional Development Fund,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1995 by the Commission of the European                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.                                              — Infringement of the Treaty or of certain rules for its
                                                                              implementation and/or infringement of essential
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                  procedural requirements, concerning in particular the
                                                                              provision of a statement of reasons for the decision
1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the measures                  ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), and/or breach of general
     necessary to comply with Council Directives                              principles of Community law: the letter of 28 July 1995
     92/40/EEC (') and 91 /495/EEC ( 2 ) in Northern Ireland,                 from the Commissioner responsible for regional policy
     or in the alternative by failing to inform the Commission                constitutes the final act in the decision-making process,
     forthwith thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to                      by which the Commission reached a definitive decision
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives and in                     concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
     particular Article 22 thereof and under the Treaty                       the Netherlands infrastructure projects decided on
     establishing the European Community;                                     by the Commission before 1 January 1989 under the
                                                                              European Regional Development Fund ( ERDF ). The
2 . order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .                               Commission 's view that the timelimit of 31 March 1995
                                                                              constitutes a final deadline is based on an incorrect, or at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           least incomprehensible, interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall                   amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 4254/88 laying down
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                        provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                     2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                       Fund ( hereinafter 'the 1993 ERDF Regulation'). The
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January                      way in which the Commission has applied Article 12 of
 1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the                           the 1993 ERDF Regulation in the contested decision,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002 in Case T-66/00: B v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Education allowance — Dependent child allowance — Conditions of grant — Recovery of undue payment)

text:
C 219/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14.9.2002
2.     Annuls Articles 3 of Decision 1999/84 in so far as it obliges            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       the Kingdom of Spain to recover State aid granted in the form
       of debt cancellation by public bodies.                                                         of 12 June 2002
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                           in Case T-66/00: B v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
4.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and 30 % of the
       costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                           (Officials — Education allowance — Dependent child allow-
                                                                            ance — Conditions of grant — Recovery of undue payment)
5.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/41)
( 1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-66/00: B, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), rep-
                                                                           resented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March
                             11 July 2002                                  1999 discontinuing, with effect from 1 September 1997, the
                                                                           education allowance and dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                           the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
in Case T-205/99: Hyper Srl v Commission of the Euro-                      composed of: M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengoz-
                        pean Communities (1)                               zi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                           given a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
(Customs duties — Importation of television sets from India
— Invalid certificates of origin — Application for remission               1.     Dismisses the application;
of import duties — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC)
   No 1430/79 — Rights of the defence — Special situation)                 2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                           (2002/C 219/40)                                 (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                     (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-205/99, Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, with an                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer and M. Nuñez-                                            9 July 2002
Müller): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
REM 14/98 of 5 February 1999 finding that the remission of
                                                                           in Case T-333/00: Rougemarine SARL v Commission of
import duties due from the applicant in respect of television
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
sets imported from India is not justified, the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          (Programme encouraging the development and distribution
judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:                                     of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Decision to
                                                                               award financial support — Refusal — Implied reasons)
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2002/C 219/42)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-333/00, Rougemarine SARL, established in Paris
                                                                           (France), represented by T. Levy and O. Rezlan, lawyers, with


title: Case C-370/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2011 — Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark EDUCA Memory game — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national and international word marks MEMORY — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Relative grounds for refusal)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/10

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2011 — Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras SA
   (Case C-370/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark EDUCA Memory game - Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national and international word marks MEMORY - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Relative grounds for refusal)
   2011/C 186/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm and M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Educa Borras SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-243/08 Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national and international word marks ‘MEMORY’ for goods in Class 28 against Decision R 597/2007-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2008 annulling the decision of the Cancellation Decision, which upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity lodged by the applicant against the figurative mark ‘EDUCA Memory Game’ for goods in Class 28

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ravensburger AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case T-418/07: Action brought on 19 November 2007 — LIBRO v OHIM — Causley (LiBRO)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/27

         Action brought on 19 November 2007 — LIBRO v OHIM — Causley (LiBRO)
   (Case T-418/07)
   (2008/C 8/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Guntramsdorf, Austria) (represented by: G. Prantl, 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: Dagmar Causley (Pleidesheim, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 September 2007 (Case 1454/2005-4) and alter it so as to allow the applicant's appeal lodged with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and as a consequence to reject the objection in its entirety;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any interveners jointly to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the word and figurative mark ‘LiBRO’ for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 616 753).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dagmar Causley.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark ‘LIBERO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 401 141).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion of the opposing trade marks.

      (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-198/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — 100 % Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark 100 % Capri — Earlier European Union figurative mark CAPRI — Relative ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — 100 % Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)
   (Case T-198/14) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark 100 % Capri - Earlier European Union figurative mark CAPRI - Relative ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 191/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: 100 % Capri Italia Srl (Capri, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI), formerly Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta and M. Franzosi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2014 (Case R 2122/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI) and 100 % Capri Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders 100 % Capri Italia Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case T-620/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Nature and general scheme of the tax system — State resources — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
   (Case T-620/11) (1)

   ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Nature and general scheme of the tax system - State resources - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations))
   (2016/C 106/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GFKL Financial Services AG (Essen, Germany) (represented initially by M. Schweda, S. Schultes-Schnitzlein, J. Eggers and M. Knebelsberger, and subsequently by M. Schweda, J. Eggers, M. Knebelsberger and F. Loose, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and R. Lyal, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche, R. Lyal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the objection of inadmissibility;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded;

               3.

               Orders GFKL Financial Services AG to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the European Commission’s costs, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-206/96: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 76/464/EEC)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 258/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 11 June 1998
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
in    Case C-206/96: Commission of the European
       Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                   in Case C-275/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Kammarrätt, Sundsvall): Anne Kuusijärvi v
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                 Riksförsäkringsverket (1)
        Non-transposition of Directive 76/464/EEC)
                                                                     (Social security Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð
                         (98/C 258/08)                               Personal scope Ð Parental benefit Ð Maintenance of
                                                                     entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to
                                                                                another Member State)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (98/C 258/09)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-206/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Jean-
Francis Pasquier) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Nicolas Schmit) Ð application for a declaration that, by
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
failing to adopt programmes for the reduction of pollution
including quality objectives for water, alternatively, by
failing to communicate to the Commission summaries of
those programmes and the results of their implementation,
contrary to Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of             In Case C-275/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous                  of the EC Treaty from the Kammarrätt (Administrative
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the            Court of Appeal), Sundsvall, Sweden, for a preliminary
Community (OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23), the Grand                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that Court
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations             between Anne Kuusijärvi and Riksförsäkringsverket Ð on
under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     the interpretation of a number of provisions of Council
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch              application of social security schemes to employed
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;                  persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                families moving within the Community, and of Council
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in                  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying
which it:                                                            down the procedure for implementing Regulation
                                                                     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230
                                                                     of 22.8.1983, p. 6), and further amended by Council
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt programmes to
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991 (OJ L 206
     reduce pollution in respect of 99 substances within
                                                                     of 29.7.1991, p. 2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
     List I in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC
                                                                     composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
     of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
                                                                     R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
     dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
                                                                     and G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.
     environment of the Community which require,
                                                                     von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
     according to the first indent in List II, to be treated
                                                                     given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
     as substances in the latter list, the Grand Duchy of
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     the said Directive;
                                                                     1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                         employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                                                                         members of their families moving within the
                                                                         Community, as amended and updated by Council
3. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, applies
     costs.
                                                                         to a person who, on the entry into force of that
                                                                         regulation in a Member State, was residing in that
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.                                               State as an unemployed person, having previously
                                                                         been in employment there, and who, by reason of that
                                                                         employment, was receiving unemployment benefit
                                                                         under the social security scheme of that Member State.


title: Case C-108/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB ‘Enteco Baltic’ v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB ‘Enteco Baltic’ v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-108/17)
   (2017/C 161/15)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UAB ‘Enteco Baltic’

      Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 143(2) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting a tax authority of a Member State from refusing to apply the exemption provided for in Article 143(1)(d) of that directive solely because at the time of importation the goods were planned to be supplied to one VAT payer and therefore its VAT identification number was specified in the import declaration, but later, after a change in circumstances, the goods were transported to another taxable person (VAT payer) and the public authority was provided with full information about the identity of the actual purchaser?

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the present case, can Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that documents that have not been disproved (e-AD [electronic administrative document] consignment notes and e-ROR [electronic report of receipt] confirmations) confirming transport of the goods from a tax warehouse in the territory of one Member State to a tax warehouse in another Member State may be regarded as sufficient proof of transportation of the goods to another Member State?

               3.

               Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting a tax authority of a Member State from refusing to apply the exemption provided for in that provision if the right of disposal was transferred to the purchaser of the goods not directly, but via the persons specified by it (transport undertakings/tax warehouses)?

               4.

               Does an administrative practice conflict with the principle of neutrality of VAT and of the protection of legitimate expectations where under that practice the interpretation differs as to what is to be regarded as a transfer of the right of disposal, and as to what evidence must be submitted to substantiate such a transfer, according to whether Article 167 or Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive is applicable?

               5.

               Does the scope of the principle of good faith in relation to the levying of VAT also encompass the right of persons to exemption from import VAT (under Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive) in cases such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, where the customs office denies the right of a taxable person to exemption from import VAT on the basis that the conditions for further supply of goods within the European Union (Article 138 of the VAT Directive) were not complied with?

               6.

               Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting an administrative practice of Member States under which the assumption that (i) the right of disposal was not transferred to a specific contractual partner and (ii) that the taxpayer knew or could have known about possible VAT fraud committed by the contractual partner is based on the fact that the undertaking communicated with the contractual partners by electronic means of communication and that it was established when the investigation was carried out by a tax authority that the contractual partners did not operate at the addresses specified and did not declare the VAT on the transactions with the taxable person?

               7.

               Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, although the duty to substantiate the right to a tax exemption falls on the taxpayer, this does not, however, mean that the competent public authority deciding the issue of transfer of the right of disposal has no obligation to collect information accessible only to public authorities?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-112/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Icebreaker v OHIM — Gilmar (ICEBREAKER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ICEBREAKER — Earlier national word mark ICEBERG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Partial refusal to register — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Icebreaker v OHIM — Gilmar (ICEBREAKER)
      (Case T-112/09) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ICEBREAKER - Earlier national word mark ICEBERG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Icebreaker Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: L. Prehn, lawyer)

         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: Gilmar SpA (San Giovanni in Marignano, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 1536/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gilmar SpA and Icebreaker Ltd.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Icebreaker Ltd to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-370/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny (France) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny (France) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA
   (Case C-370/17)
   (2017/C 283/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC)

      Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

      Question referred

   Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Article 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee to be preserved even though the E 101 certificate has been obtained as a result of fraud or an abuse of right, which has been established in a final decision of a court of the Member State in which the employee carries out or should carry out his activity?
   If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does the issuing of E 101 certificates prevent the victims of the damage suffered as a result of the conduct of the employer, who has committed the fraud, from being compensated for that damage, without the affiliation of the employees to the schemes designated by the E 101 certificate being called into question by the action for damages brought against the employer?

      (1)  OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Huta Buczek v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/66

      Order of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Huta Buczek v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/119)
      Language of the case: Polish
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that Case T-440/07 be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-257/16: Action brought on 19 May 2016 – NM v European Council

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/43

         Action brought on 19 May 2016 – NM v European Council
   (Case T-257/16)
   (2016/C 251/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NM (Lesbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor, and P. O’Shea, BL)

      Defendant: European Council

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18 March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;

               —

               order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18 March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.


title: Case C-595/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 November 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 November 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs
   (Case C-595/13)
   2014/C 39/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company which has been set up by more than one investor for the sole purpose of investing the assets assembled in immovable property may be regarded as a special investment fund within the meaning of that provision?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management’ also covers the actual management of the company’s immovable property, which the company has entrusted to a third party?

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


title: Case C-259/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam, Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Omni Metal Service (Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Waste — Cables composed of copper and PVC — Export to China for purposes of recovery — Heading GC 020 — Mixed waste — Combination of two materials mentioned in the green list of wastes — Such mixed waste not included on the green list — Consequences)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam, Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Omni Metal Service
   (Case C-259/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 - Waste - Cables composed of copper and PVC - Export to China for purposes of recovery - Heading GC 020 - Mixed waste - Combination of two materials mentioned in the green list of wastes - Such mixed waste not included on the green list - Consequences)
   (2007/C 183/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank te Rotterdam
   Party in the criminal prosecution in the main proceedings
   Omni Metal Service
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Rotterdam — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) — Whether cable scrap with a diameter of 15 cm and composed of different materials may be classified as electronic scrap within the meaning of heading GC 020 of the green list in Annex II to that regulation — Whether it is possible to transport such waste without the notification procedure or without the need to transport it separately
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Heading GC 020 of the green list of wastes in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2557/2001 of 28 December 2001, is to be interpreted as covering wire cable only if such wire comes from electronic equipment.

               2.

               Regulation No 259/93, as amended by Regulation No 2557/2001, is to be construed in such a way that the fact that composite waste is a combination of two materials both of which are mentioned in the green list of wastes in Annex II to that regulation does not have the effect of making the rules laid down by that regulation concerning the wastes mentioned on that list applicable to such composite waste.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case C-513/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/25

         Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-513/09)
   2010/C 37/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/66/EC expired on 26 September 2008. However, at the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 266, p. 1.


title: Case C-554/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Michael Seeger (Road transport — Obligation to use recording equipment — Derogations for vehicles transporting materials — Meaning of materials — Carriage of empty bottles in the vehicle of a wine and drinks merchant)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Michael Seeger
   (Case C-554/09) (1)

   (Road transport - Obligation to use recording equipment - Derogations for vehicles transporting materials - Meaning of ‘materials’ - Carriage of empty bottles in the vehicle of a wine and drinks merchant)
   2011/C 298/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

      Party in the main proceedings

   Andreas Michael Seeger

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — System of exceptions exempting, inter alia, vehicles used for carrying materials for the driver’s use in the course of his work from the obligation to have a tachograph — Applicability of that exception to the carriage of empty returnable bottles in the vehicle of a wine and drinks merchant — Meaning of ‘materials’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The expression ‘materials’ appearing in Article 13(1)(d), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as not covering packaging materials, such as empty bottles, carried by a wine and drinks merchant who runs a shop, makes deliveries to his customers once a week and, while doing so, collects the empty bottles to take them to his wholesaler.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-342/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/30

         Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-342/07)
   (2007/C 211/58)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Schima)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, or in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Hellenic Republic pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/91/EC into national law expired on 4 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 1 of 4.1.2003, p. 65.


title: Case C-234/07: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-234/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/70)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-68/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — FIFA v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/30

         Action brought on 6 February 2008 — FIFA v Commission
   (Case T-68/08)
   (2008/C 107/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Batchelor, F. Young, Solicitors, and A. Barav, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment, in whole or in part, of the Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, in particular Articles 1-3 thereof in so far as it concerns the FIFA World Cup™;

               —

               an order that the Commission pay its own costs and FIFA's costs in connection with these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) a Member State may draw up a list of sporting or other events that are considered to be events of ‘major importance to society’. The events on the list cannot be the subject of exclusive broadcasting rights which prevent a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State from watching the event via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 (2) by which the Commission declared that the list drawn up by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, listing all 64 FIFA World Cup matches, was compatible with Community law. This prevents FIFA from granting exclusive licenses to broadcasters in respect of live broadcasting in the United Kingdom of any of the FIFA World Cup matches.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's decision is vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by failing to state reasons for approving the inclusion of all 64 matches in the FIFA World Cup on the list of the United Kingdom.
   Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes Directive 89/552/EEC, as the procedure followed by the British authorities for the adoption of the measure was not clear and transparent, and as all the matches played within the framework of the FIFA World Cup were not of major importance for the British society.
   The applicant moreover alleges that the contested decision infringes the applicant's property rights by preventing it from granting exclusive licenses in respect of live broadcasting in the United Kingdom for any of the matches played within the framework of the FIFA World Cup.
   The applicant further claims that the contested decision infringes the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom to provide services by depriving the applicant from licensing and broadcasters from acquiring live exclusive rights to any of the FIFA World Cup matches broadcasted in the United Kingdom.
   The applicant also claims that the contested decision infringes the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition by permitting an abusive behaviour of a joint dominant position and/or anti-competitive agreement for the acquisition of live broadcasting rights to international football matches in the United Kingdom and by restricting competition on related free-to-air television, advertising and premium sports pay-television markets.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the contested decision infringes the provisions of the EC Treaty on the right of establishment by restricting access to live exclusive broadcasting rights in the United Kingdom to any of the matches played within the framework of the FIFA World Cup by entrants or potential entrants into the relevant British market.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12).


title: Case F-130/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Earlie v Parliament (Civil service — Official — Former official — Sums deducted from his retirement pension — Maintenance payable to the ex-wife of the former official — Attachment order adopted by a national court — Attachment order discharged — New order requiring the former official to instruct the Parliament to pay the maintenance to his ex-wife — Instructions to that effect by the former official — Subsequent instructions from the former official to cease the payments to his ex-wife — Parliament’s refusal to execute the instructions — Family law — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national court — Duty of sincere cooperation)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/29

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Earlie v Parliament
      (Case F-130/14) (1)

      ((Civil service - Official - Former official - Sums deducted from his retirement pension - Maintenance payable to the ex-wife of the former official - Attachment order adopted by a national court - Attachment order discharged - New order requiring the former official to instruct the Parliament to pay the maintenance to his ex-wife - Instructions to that effect by the former official - Subsequent instructions from the former official to cease the payments to his ex-wife - Parliament’s refusal to execute the instructions - Family law - Exclusive jurisdiction of the national court - Duty of sincere cooperation))
      (2016/C 364/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Thomas Earlie (Seville, Spain) (represented by: D. Bergin, solicitor)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Mary Earlie Gibbons (Dublin, Ireland) (H. Millar, solicitor)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision to deduct from the applicant’s pension the amount of maintenance the applicant is obliged to pay to his former wife, that being a decision which, according to the applicant, infringes a judgment of a national court in divorce proceedings and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Declares that Mr Earlie shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

                  3.

                  Declares that Ms Earlie Gibbons shall bear her own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 52.


title: Case C-237/99: Action brought on 24 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
28.8.1999                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 246/17
Action brought on 24 June 1999 by the Commission of                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
 the European Communities against the French Republic                     Düsseldorf by order of that court of 21 June 1999 in the
                                                                          case of NACHI Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Krefeld
                            (Case C-237/99)
                                                                                (Case C-239/99)
                           (1999/C 246/34)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/35)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office            dorf (Financial Court, Düsseldorf) of 21 June 1999, received at
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    the Court Registry on 24 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          in the case of NACHI Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
                                                                          on the following questions:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         1. Is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 (1) invalid?
— declare that, in the context of various tendering procedures            2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative,
     concerning public contracts for the construction of hous-                 from what point in time is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC)
     ing which were carried out by offices publics d’aménagement               No 2849/92 to be considered void in regard to the
     et de construction (public development and construction                   plaintiff?
     entities) and by sociétés anonymes d’habitations à loyer modéré
     (low-cost housing companies), the French Republic has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/37/EEC (1),      (1) OJ L 286 of 1.10.1992, p. 2.
     in particular Article 11(2) thereof;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
                                                                          by judgment of that court of 10 June 1999 concerning an
Failure to comply with the obligation, laid down in Article               application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebola-
11(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC, requiring publication in the                                         get Skandia (publ)
Official Journal of the European Communities: the French auth-
orities take refuge behind the categorisation applied under
national law to offices publics d’aménagement et de construction                                    (Case C-240/99)
(OPACs) and to sociétés anonymes d’habitations à loyer modéré
(SAHLMs), in order to avoid attributing to them the statue of
contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(b) of                                       (1999/C 246/36)
the directive. However, the term ‘body governed by public law’
is a term of Community law. Both OPACs and SAHLMs meet                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
all the criteria laid down in Article 1(b) of the directive.              European Communities by judgment of the Regeringsrätten
Although OPACs are entities of an industrial and commercial               on 10 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on 25 June
nature, and although SAHLMs possess the form of commercial                1999, for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning an
companies, they have been established for the specific purpose            application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebolaget
of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an                   Skandia (publ):
industrial or commercial character (they produce and manage
housing to be let to persons on low incomes), they have legal
personality and they are closely controlled by the State, by              Does an insurance company’s commitment, of the kind
regional or local authorities or by other bodies governed by              which Skandia plans to assume, to run the business of a
public law (in the case of OPACs, as regards the composition              wholly-owned subsidiary constitute an insurance transaction
of their administrative board and the power of control                    or insurance transactions within the meaning of Article 13B(a)
exercised by the State, and in the case of SAHLMs, as regards             of the Sixth Directive? (1)
the power of control).
                                                                          (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                              harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-182/14: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Meccanica (ELIKA)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/42

         Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Meccanica (ELIKA)
   (Case T-182/14) (1)

   (2015/C 205/57)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case T-3/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — Allstate Insurance v EUIPO (DRIVEWISE) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the EU word mark DRIVEWISE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — Allstate Insurance v EUIPO (DRIVEWISE)
   (Case T-3/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU word mark DRIVEWISE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Allstate Insurance Company (Northfield, Illinois, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and N. Martzivanou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and K. Doherty, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2015 (Case R 956/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DRIVEWISE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Allstate Insurance Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case C-509/08: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-509/08) (1)

   2009/C 282/57

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 June 2004
   in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)
   (2004/C 190/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-168/02: REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Rudolf Kronhofer and Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan - on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and amended text p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ does not refer to the place where the claimant is domiciled or where ‘his assets are concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose and was incurred in another Contracting State.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.


title: Case C-485/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014  — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/18

         Action brought on 3 November 2014 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-485/14)
   (2015/C 007/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France, in a Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which has concluded a bilateral agreement with France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the Commission, French legislation, as interpreted by the tax authorities, exempts from droits de mutation à titre gratuit gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France, in a Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which has concluded a bilateral agreement with France. The Commission considers that that constitutes a restriction on free movement of capital, contrary to Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.
   By way of justification for such an arrangement, the French Republic claims, as its principal argument, that French legislation makes a distinction between tax payers who are not in an objectively comparable situation and, in the alternative, puts forward a public interest argument, based on the need to collect taxes.
   The Commission contests that justification. In its view, the contested provisions make a distinction on the basis of criteria that are purely geographical. Moreover, the Commission considers that the public interest plea relied on does not satisfy the requirements laid down by case-law, in particular the judgment in Persche
       (1). Lastly, the Commission is of the view that the restriction on the movement of capital is, in any event, disproportionate.

      (1)  Judgment in Persche, C-318/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:33.


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/10

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-32/15)
   (2016/C 216/07)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex VIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area:

                           —

                           Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, and

                           —

                           Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences,

                           —

                           Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences,

                     as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 24 August 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 24 June 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, as well as
               Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, and
               Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, as referred to at point 24f of Annex VIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-385/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/49

         Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)
   (Case T-385/14)
   2014/C 253/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims 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 24 March 2014 in Case R 1787/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ULTIMATE for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-374/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2017 — VM Vermogens-Management v EUIPO — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Vermögensmanufaktur — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2017 — VM Vermogens-Management v EUIPO — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)
   (Case T-374/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Vermögensmanufaktur - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 357/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH (Baldham, Germany) (represented by: H.-G. Stache, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 418/2014–5), relating to invalidity proceedings between DAT Vermögensmanagement and VM Vermögens-Management.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders VM Vermögens-Management GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) as well;

               3.

               Orders DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-175/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
   (Case T-175/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 144/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1725/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-644/14: Action brought on 30 August 2014 — ADR Center v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/21

         Action brought on 30 August 2014 — ADR Center v Commission
   (Case T-644/14)
   2014/C 388/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision set out in its letter of 27 June 2014 for a recovery action against ADR Center;

               —

               order the immediate payment of the balance due to ADR Center of 79  700,40 EUR, per the pro forma invoice and credit notes issued November 13, 2013;

               —

               order the immediate payment of damages suffered by ADR Center to its international reputation, and for the time devoted by its senior staff to defend a groundless claim;

               —

               order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure in an amount to be determined equitably by the Court.

      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 contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the audit actions and the ensuing orders by the Commission are based on a set of rules that were never agreed upon.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission unreasonably delayed its issuance of the final audit reports and accompanying recovery orders.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to meet its burden of proof. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission has based its final financial audit and the ensuing recovery orders on unsubstantiated findings.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the findings of the Commission’s audit were erroneous. The applicant claims in that regard that findings of the Commission’s audit are contested based upon a number of manifest errors, procedural and substantive. The applicant also claims that the Commission has not only failed to review the very orders it has issued, the Commission has also blatantly ignored and failed to consider any and all issues that were raised by ADR Center.


title: Case T-274/10: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/21

         Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission
   (Case T-274/10) (1)

   2011/C 113/43
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-372/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/34

         Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)
   (Case T-372/16)
   (2016/C 314/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Männerspielplatz’ — European Union trade mark No 8 534 364

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1796/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009;

               —

               The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts;

               —

               The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts;

               —

               In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services;

               —

               The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services.