title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1995 in Case C-96/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Centro Servizi Spediporto Srl gegen Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo Srl (Road transport - Tariffs - State legislation - Competition)

text:
 No C 299/6           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                            products.
                      of 5 October 1995
                                                                    (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
in Case C-440/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice, Queen 's Bench Division,
Divisional Court ): The Queen v. Licensing Authority of the
Department of Health, Norgine Limited, ex-parte: Scotia
                   Pharmaceuticals Ltd (')
 (Medicinal products — Placing on the market — Summary
                      of the proceedings)                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( 95/C 299/08 )                                                     ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 5 October 1995
                                                                    in Case C-96/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
               (Language of the case: English)                     Tribunale di Genova ): Centro Servizi Spediporto Srl gegen
                                                                                Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo Srl (')
                                                                    (Road transport — Tariffs — State legislation —
In Case C-440/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                     Competition)
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen 's                                      ( 95/C 299/09 )
Bench Division, Divisional Court ( United Kingdom ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between The Queen and ( 1 ) Licensing Authority of the                        (Language of the case: Italian)
Department of Health, ( 2 ) Norgine Limited, ex-parte : Scotia
Pharmaceuticals Ltd — on the interpretation of point ( 8 ) ( a )
                                                                    (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will he
( ii ) of the second paragraph of Article 4 of Council
Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation
or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal         In Case C-96/94 : reference to the Court under Article 1 77 of
products ( OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 ),      the EEC Treaty by the Tribunale di Genova ( District Court,
as amended by Council Directive 87/21 /EEC of                      Genoa ) ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
22 December 1986 ( OJ 1987L 15 , p. 36 ) — the Court ( Sixth       pending before that court between Centro Servizi
Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of           Spediporto Sri and Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo Sri on the
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray           interpretation of Articles 3 ( g ), 5 , 30 , 85 , 86 and 90 of the
( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch , Judges; P. Leger,                   EC Treaty, of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of
Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the              22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1995 , in             provide services to maritime transport between Member
which it rules :                                                   States and between Member States and third countries ( OJ
                                                                    1986 L 378 , p. 1 ), and of Council Directive 92/ 106/EEC of
                                                                   7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
                                                                   certain types of combined transport of goods between
on a proper construction, point (8) (a) (ii) of the second         Member States ( OJ 1992 L 368 , p. 38 ) — the Court ( Sixth
paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of           Chamber ), composed of F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ),
26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid            President of Chamber , G. F. Mancini , J. L. Murray,
down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to       G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm , Judges; P. Leger;
proprietary medicinal products, as amended by Council              Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Directive 87/21 /EEC of 22 December 1986 , means that              Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1995 , in
a national authority with competence to issue an                   which it rules :
authorization to place a medicinal product on the domestic
market may not issue such authorization where the
particulars and documents submitted in support of the               1 . neither Articles 3 (g), 5, 85 , 86 or 90 of the EC Treaty,
application for an authorization do not contain detailed                nor Article 30 of that Treaty, preclude the legislation of
references to published scientific literature presented in              a Member State from providing for roadhaulage tariffs
accordance with each of the requirements laid down                      to be approved and brought into force by the State on
in Parts 2 and 3 of the Annex to Council                                the basis of proposals submitted by a committee, where
Directive 75/31 8/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                             that committee is composed of a majority of
approximation of the laws of Member States relating to                  representatives of the public authorities and a minority
analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards               of representatives of the economic agents concerned and
and protocols in respect of the testing of proprietary                  in its proposals must observe certain public interest
medicinal products, and where those documents do not                    criteria, and ivhere, moreover, the public authorities do
comprise experts ' reports complying with each of the                   not relinquish their rights and powers by taking into
requirements laid down in Articles 1 and 2 of Council                   consideration, before the proposals are approved, the
Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                              observation of other public and private bodies , or even
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation                by fixing tariffs ex officio;
 ---pagebreak---  11 . 11 . 95           tN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 299/7
2 . Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on                        of Article 5 (1 ) (a), is not applicable to customs
      the establishment of common rules for certain types of                  transactions in respect of goods from non-member
      combined transport of goods between Member States                       countries , in particular members of EETA ;
      does not apply to combined transport of goods between
      third   countries   and    Member     States  and      Council
                                                                         2 . the Member States are not entitled unilaterally to impose
      Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986                         charges having equivalent effect in trade with
      applying the principle of freedom to provide services                   non-member countries. Where the prohibition of such
      to maritime transport between Member States and                         charges is contained in bilateral or multilateral
      between Member States and third countries does not
                                                                              agreements concluded by the Community with one or
      apply to the transportation by road of goods unloaded                   more non-member countries with a view to eliminating
      from the vessel.                                                        obstacles to trade and in the Council Regulations
                                                                              providing for common organization of the markets in
(') O J No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                            various agricultural products regarding trade with
                                                                              non-member countries, the scope of that prohibition is
                                                                              the same as in the case of intra - Community trade.
                                                                         (') OJ No C : 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber )
                        of 5 October 1995
in Case C-125 /94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Giudice Conciliatore, Milan ): Aprile Srl, in liquidation ,                                    ( Sixth Chamber )
        v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (')
                                                                                of 12 October 1995
(Charges having equivalent effect — Prohibition —
 Whether applicable to trade with non-member countries)                  in    Case C-236/94 : Commission of the European
                           ( 95/C 299/ 10 )
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')
                                                                         (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/339/EEC —
                                                                                Non-transposition)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/ 1 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                         (Language of the case: French)
In Case C - 125 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EEC Treaty from the Giudice Conciliatore                                     published in the European Court reports)
(Judge-Conciliator ), Milan , for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Aprile Sri , in            In Case C-236/94 : Commission of the European
liquidation , and Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato              Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Eier ) v. Kingdom of
— on the interpretation of Articles 3 ( a ) and ( h ), 5 , 9 , 11 , 12 , Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a
13 , 16 and 189 of the EEC Treaty and Council Directive                  declaration that, by not adopting and, in the alternative, by
83 /643 /EEC of 1 December 1983 on the facilitation of                   not communicating to the Commission within the
physical inspections and administrative formalities in                   prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
respect of the carriage of goods between Member States ( OJ              provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
 1983 L 359 , p. 8 ), as amended by Council Directive                    91 /339/EEC of 18 June 1991 amending for the 11th time
87/53/EEC of 15 December 1986 ( OJ 1987 L 24 , p. 33 ) —                 Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of F. A. Schockweiler              regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris,                States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
J. L. Murray , G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                       certain dangerous substances and preparations ( OJ 1991
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,                    L 1 86 , p. 64 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
5 October 1995 , in which it rules :                                     Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris , President of the
                                                                         Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini , F. A.
                                                                         Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn , Judges ; G. Tesauro,
 1 . without prejudice to the application of special                     Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      Community provisions in force governing trade with                 judgment on 12 October 1995 , in which it:
      certain   non-member countries,         Council Directive
      83/643 /EEC of 1 December 1983 on the facilitation of
      physical inspections and administrative formalities in              1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
      respect of the carriage ofgoods between Member States,                  period the laws, regulations and administrative
      as amended by Council Directive 87/53/EEC of                            provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
       15 December 1986 , in particular the second indent                      91 /339/EEC of 18 June 1991 amending for the 11th


title: Case C-502/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Application of a reduced rate — Supply of digital books or electronic books)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-502/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Application of a reduced rate - Supply of digital books or electronic books))
   (2015/C 138/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Chatziioakeimidou and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               (1)

               Declares that, by applying a rate of value added tax of 3 % to the supply of digital or electronic books, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC;

               (2)

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               (3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-537/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova (Maritime transport — Directive 1999/32/EC — Marpol Convention 73/78 — Annex VI — Air pollution from ships — Passenger ships operating regular services — Cruise ships — Maximum sulphur content in marine fuels — Validity)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova
   (Case C-537/11) (1)

   (Maritime transport - Directive 1999/32/EC - Marpol Convention 73/78 - Annex VI - Air pollution from ships - Passenger ships operating regular services - Cruise ships - Maximum sulphur content in marine fuels - Validity)
   2014/C 93/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra

      Defendant: Capitaneria di Porto di Genova,

      Intervening parties: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Genova — Validity of Article 4a of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ 1999 L 121, p. 13), as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC (OJ 1991 L 191, p. 59) — Compatibility with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (‘MARPOL Convention’) of the obligation on Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent the use of marine fuels the sulphur content of which exceeds 1.5% by mass by passengers ships operating regular service to or from European Union ports — Interpretation of Article 2 of the same directive — Concept of ‘regular services’ — Applicability of the said limit to cruise ships.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A cruise ship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Article 4a(4) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 with regard to the criterion of ‘regular services’, as laid down in Article 2(3g) thereof, provided that it operates cruises, with or without intermediate calls, finishing in the port of departure or another port, provided that those cruises are organised at a particular frequency, on specific dates and, in principle, at specified departure and arrival times, with interested persons being able to choose freely between the various cruises offered, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

               2.

               The validity of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32, as amended by Directive 2005/33, cannot be examined in the light of the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda or the principle of cooperation in good faith enshrined in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU on the ground that that provision of the directive may lead to an infringement of Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by the Protocol of 17 February 1978 and thereby oblige the Member States party to the Protocol of 1997 amending the International Convention of 1973 for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, signed in London on 26 September 1997, to infringe their obligations with respect to the other contracting parties thereto.

               3.

               It is not for the Court to rule on the impact of Annex VI on the scope of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011


title: Case T-252/17: Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/45

         Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
   (Case T-252/17)
   (2017/C 195/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Simply. Connected.’ — Application for registration No 14 814 032

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2017 in Case R 947/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the cost of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-163/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 80/68/EEC — Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances — Articles 3, 4 and 5 — Directive 91/689/EEC — Hazardous waste — Article 2(1) and Article 6(1)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-163/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 80/68/EEC - Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Articles 3, 4 and 5 - Directive 91/689/EEC - Hazardous waste - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1)
   (2005/C 143/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-163/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 April 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, having failed, as regards the region of Thriassion Pedion:

                           —

                           to adopt the measures necessary to prevent the introduction into groundwater of substances in list I of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, and to limit the introduction into groundwater of substances in list II of that directive so as to avoid pollution of that water by those substances,

                           —

                           to subject to prior investigation any disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of the substances in list I of that directive which might lead to indirect discharge, and

                           —

                           to subject to prior investigation all direct discharge of substances in list II of Directive 80/68 and the disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of those substances which might lead to indirect discharge,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 80/68.

               2.

               Declares that, having failed to take the measures necessary to record and identify the hazardous waste tipped in the region of Thriassion Pedion and to draw up, either separately or in the framework of their general waste management plans, plans for the management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassion Pedion, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003


title: Case C-150/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten v N

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten v N
   (Case C-150/15)
   (2015/C 236/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten

      Defendant: N

      Other party: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 9(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) to be interpreted as follows:

                           a)

                           that a severe violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 10(1) CFREU (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and Article 9(1) ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and thus an act of persecution under Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive must be assumed when religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated by a doctrine of faith that the applicant actively professes and which form a core element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the religious convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a pillar of his religious identity, are prohibited by criminal law in the country of origin,
                           or

                           b)

                           is it required that an applicant who actively declares his belief in a particular doctrine of faith must further prove that core elements mandated as religious acts or as or expressions of view by the doctrine of faith, which represent a prohibited religious activity subject to criminal prosecution in his country of origin, are ‘particularly important’ for the preservation of his religious identity and in this sense are ‘essential’?

               2.

               Is Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as follows:
               that in order to determine a well-founded fear of being persecuted and a real risk of being persecuted or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by one of the actors specified in Article 6 of Directive 2011/95/EU, with regard to religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated by a doctrine of faith that the applicant actively professes and are a core element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the religious convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a pillar of his religious identity, and are prohibited by criminal law in the country of origin,

                           a)

                           it is necessary to evaluate the relationship by comparing the number of members of the applicant’s faith who practice their faith despite the prohibition to the number of actual acts of persecution of these acts of faith in the applicant’s country of origin, including any possible uncertainties or unknowns regarding governmental enforcement practices,
                           or

                           b)

                           it is sufficient if, in the enforcement of the criminal law in the country of origin, the actual application of the laws threatening prosecution of religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated by a doctrine of faith that the applicant actively professes and which form a core element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the religious convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a of particular importance for his religious identity can be proved?

               3.

               Is a provision of national administrative law under which a trial court is bound by the legal judgment of the court of third instance (here: Section 144(6) VwGO (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) [Administrative Court Procedure Act]) compatible with the principle of the primacy of EU law if the trial court wishes to interpret a standard in EU law differently to the court of third instance but, even after implementation of a preliminary ruling procedure pursuant to Article 267(2) TFEU, is precluded from applying this interpretation of EU law by national law binding the court to the legal analysis of the court of third instance?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ L 337, p. 9).


title: Case C-202/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Direction départementale des finances publiques de l’Orne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(v) — Tax exemption scheme for undertakings taking over a firm in difficulty — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Recovery of individual aid granted under an aid scheme — Assessment of the validity of the Commission decision — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ )

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/3

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Direction départementale des finances publiques de l’Orne
   (Case C-202/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(v) - Tax exemption scheme for undertakings taking over a firm in difficulty - Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Recovery of individual aid granted under an aid scheme - Assessment of the validity of the Commission decision - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’))
   (2015/C 056/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adiamix

      Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques de l’Orne

      Operative part of the order

   Consideration of the question referred has not shown any factor such as to affect the validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Case T-366/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Errors in the calculation of the aid — Obligations of the Commission with regard to the calculation of the aid — Rights of the recipient of aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 13(1))

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-366/00) (1)

   (State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Errors in the calculation of the aid - Obligations of the Commission with regard to the calculation of the aid - Rights of the recipient of aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 13(1))
   (2007/C 96/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Scott SA, (Saint-Cloud (France)) (represented by: Sir Jeremy Lever QC, G. Peretz and J. Gardner, Barristers, and R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors,)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Flett, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, S. Seam and F. Million, Agents),
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark to the extent that it concerns the aid granted in the form of a preferential price for the property referred to in Article 1;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant relating to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.


20150731025616762015/C 270/046492013CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506114411Case C-649/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles — France) — Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others v Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA and Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA v Alan Robert Bloom and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Main insolvency proceedings — Secondary insolvency proceedings — Conflict of jurisdiction — Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction — Determination of the applicable law — Determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the secondary insolvency proceedings — Determination of the location of those assets — Assets situated in a third State)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN410120150611EN00044141Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles — France) — Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others v Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA and Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA v Alan Robert Bloom and Others
   (Case C-649/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Main insolvency proceedings — Secondary insolvency proceedings — Conflict of jurisdiction — Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction — Determination of the applicable law — Determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the secondary insolvency proceedings — Determination of the location of those assets — Assets situated in a third State)’2015/C 270/04Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA and Others, Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA

      Defendants: Cosme Rogeau, acting as court-appointed liquidator in the secondary insolvency proceedings in respect of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom, Alan Michael Hudson, Stephen John Harris, Christopher John Wilkinson Hill

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction, concurrently with the courts of the Member State in which the main proceedings have been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor’s assets falling within the scope of the effects of those secondary proceedings.
   The debtor’s assets that fall within the scope of the effects of secondary insolvency proceedings must be determined in accordance with Article 2(g) of Regulation No 1346/2000.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-386/03 (1)

   (2005/C 57/69)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 15 December 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-386/03, Deutsche Telekom v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.


title: Case C-609/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
   (Case C-609/12)
   2013/C 101/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ehrmann AG

      Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

      Question referred

   Was it necessary to comply with the duty to provide information under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) in 2010?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9, and Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the list of nutrition claims (Text with EEA relevance) OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 1 December 1995 in the case of Dr Kalliope Schöning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Case C-15/96)

text:
No C 64/ 10 .            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 3 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du                    large, but variable, proportion of the material which it
Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of                               broadcasts is of non-European origin if the national
4 December 1995 in the case of Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian                       court also finds that the body in question is based in the
          State in the person of the Finance Minister                          territory of the Member State in question and that the
                              Case C-13 /96 )                                  actual activities of programme management,
                                                                               composition and assembly are carried out there ?
                              ( 96/C 64/21
                                                                         2 . Assuming that broadcasts emanating from a television
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         broadcaster authorized by a Member State are not to be
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat                         regarded as broadcasts transmitted by a broadcaster
( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium of 4 December                   under the jurisdiction of a Member State within the
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             meaning of Directive 89/552/EEC, is another Member
19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bic                  State entitled — and, if so, on what conditions , regard
Benelux SA against Belgian State in the person of the Finance                  being had in particular to Article 59 et seq. of the Treaty
Minister on the following question :                                           — to prohibit or restrict their retransmission in a
                                                                               particular area ?
'Do the obligation to affix a particular distinctive sign on
products subject to a tax payable by reason of the ecological            3 . Should Article 2 of that Directive be interpreted as
damage they are deemed to cause, prior to the release of such                  meaning that, if a television broadcaster comes under
products on to the market, and the obligation to affix                         the jurisdiction of a Member State, another Member
another distinctive sign on products of the same type if they                  State is not entitled to oppose the retransmission in its
are exempt from that tax by virtue of diplomatic privilege,                    territory of television broadcasts transmitted by that
constitute " technical specifications " within the meaning of                  broadcaster even in the event that the rules laid down in
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March                   Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive are not complied
1983 ( 1 ) laying down a procedure for the provision of                        with ?
information in the field of technical standards and
regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC                 ( 1 ) OJ No L 298 , p . 23 .
of 22 March 1988 ( 2 ), or " technical regulations " within the
meaning of Article 1 ( 5 ) of that Directive ?'
(') OJ No L 109 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 81 , p . 75 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that court of 1 December 1995 in the
                                                                         case of Dr Kalliope Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und
                                                                                Hansestadt Hamburg
                                                                                ( Case C-15/96 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                                                96 /C 64/23 )
Premiere Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
16 January 1996 in the criminal case of Procurateur du Roi,              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
civil party: the Belgian State, in the persons of the Deputy             European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht
Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications and                   ( Labour Court ) Hamburg — Third Chamber — of
Public Undertakings and the Minister for Scientific Policy v.            1 December 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
                                Paul Denuit                              19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr
                            ( Case C-14/96 )                             Kalliope Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und
                                                                         Hansestadt Hamburg on the following questions :
                               ( 96/C 64/22 )
                                                                          1 . is there an infringement of Article 48 of the EC Treaty
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         and Article 7 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                            No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for
Premiere Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,                      workers within the Community ( J ) where a collective
Brussels ) of 16 January 1996 , received at the Court Registry                 agreement for the public service provides for promotion
on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                  on grounds of seniority after eight years' service only in a
case of Procurateur du Roi, civil party: the Belgian State, in                 particular salary bracket provided for by the collective
the persons of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister                      wage agreement in force for all employees in the public
for Communications and Public Undertakings and the                             service of the Federal Republic of Germany ('the BAT')
Minister for Scientific Policy v. Paul Denuit on the following                 and therefore does not take account of comparable
questions :                                                                    activities carried out in the public service of another
                                                                               Member State of the EC ?
 1 . What conditions have to be met for a television
      broadcaster to be regarded as coming under the                     2 . If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative :
      jurisdiction of a Member State within the meaning of
      Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (') of                    does Article 48 together with Regulation ( EEC )
       3 October 1989 ? To what extent is it relevant that a                   No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 3 . 96           1 EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 64/ 11
     workers within the Community require that, where                           himself during the first stage of its life and refrains from
     doctors have worked as such in the public service of                       pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
     another Member State of the EC, the time spent in such
     employment should likewise be taken into account for                       if the cash benefit, which is a fixed amount, is paid only
     the purposes of promotion on grounds of seniority as                       if the income does not exceed certain limits graduated
     provided for in the BAT or should the court instead take                   according to the number of members of the family,
     no such decision and leave this matter to the parties to                   and if, although the cash benefit, as a family-policy
     the collective agreement, having regard to their freedom                   social benefit, is intended as recompense for bringing up
     to agree terms ?                                                           the child and to compensate for the absence of income
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                                from a full-time occupation and the other burdens of
                                                                                caring for and bringing up the child, its primary purpose
                                                                                is to act as an incentive to foster an attachment to the
                                                                                child ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 29 November                       cash benefit in relation to a migrant worker within the
1995 in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                                meaning of Article 73 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71
                      Nordrhein-Westfalen                                       a family benefit even if it is not the worker himself who is
                                                                                bringing up the child and is therefore entitled, but his
                         ( Case C-16/96 )                                       wife ?
                           ( 96/C 64/24 )
                                                                          3 . Do national rules which in a Member State provide, in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          favour of its nationals residing there, for an entitlement
European Communities by an order of the                                         to a cash benefit for one parent who her or himself
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) — 14th                             brings up her or his child during the first stage of its life
Chamber — of 29 November 1995 , which was received at                           and refrains from pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
the Court Registry on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary                       also apply, under EC law, such as Article 7 ( 2 ) of
ruling in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 2 ), to the spouse of a
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:                                 worker who works in that State for the purpose of
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 and who lives with his
1 . Is a cash benefit financed from tax revenue a family                        spouse in another Member State ( frontier worker )?
     benefit within the meaning of Article 1 ( u ) ( i ) of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), if a condition for                ( ] ) OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
     entitlement is that one parent brings up the child her or            ( 2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  annulment of — firstly, the decision of the Selection
                       of 16 January 1996                                 Committee for Artists' Competition No 93/S 21-3373/FR,
                                                                          taken on behalf of the Council and notified to the applicant
in Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte v. Council of the
                                                                          by letter of 14 January 1994 , not to admit her to the second
                       European Union (')                                 stage of that competition, — secondly, that Committee's
(Artists ' competition — Rules of the competition —                       decision to delegate to each national working party the
Lawfulness of the selection procedure — Powers of the                     initial selection of applications from artists established in its
                      Selection Committee)                                national territory, — thirdly, its decision to fix the number
                            ( 96/C 64/25 )                                of artists to be selected at three per Member State, and —
                                                                          fourthly, its decision to draw up without further
                                                                          examination the list of artists admitted to the second stage of
                                                                          the competition; and ( ii ) an order requiring the Council to
                 (Language of the case: French)                           pay a symbolic ecu as compensation for the damage which
                                                                          the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                          Selection Committee's decisions, in particular the decision
In Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte , self-employed artist,                rejecting her application — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
residing in Jambes ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel                   Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, R.
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue                   has given a judgment on 16 January 1996 , in which it:
Glesener v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves
Cretien and Diego Canga Fano ) — application for ( i )                     1 . dismisses the application;


title: Case T-168/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Arkema v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for Monochloroacetic acid — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market sharing and price fixing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Deterrent effect — Actual impact on the market — Attenuating circumstances — Role of follower — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringement)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Arkema v Commission
   (Case T-168/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for Monochloroacetic acid - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market sharing and price fixing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Actual impact on the market - Attenuating circumstances - Role of follower - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringement)
   2009/C 282/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Arkema SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and F. Amato, then A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, annul Article 1(d), Article 2(c) and Article 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/ E-1/37.773 — MCAA) and, in the alternative, request to amend Article 2 (c) and (d) of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, of 9.7.2005.


title: Case T-737/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014  — Vnesheconombank v Council

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/41

         Action brought on 24 October 2014 — Vnesheconombank v Council
   (Case T-737/14)
   (2015/C 007/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriate Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove the applicant’s name from the annex thereto;

               —

               annul Article 5 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove the applicant’s name from Annex III thereto;

               —

               annul replacement Article 1 as provided for by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove the applicant’s name from Annex I referred to therein;

               —

               annul replacement Article 5 as provided for by Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove its name from the Annex in which the applicant is included;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the abovementioned provisions which relate to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in so far as those provisions concern the applicant.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, given that the contested provisions fail to state, in relation to VEB, any reasons whatsoever, which means that it cannot properly prepare its defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, since there is no genuine factual or evidential basis for the latter.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards (i) the reasons stated for the provisions, (ii) the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and (iii) the rights of defence and of property, given that the requirement to state reasons and the need to produce genuine evidence have not been observed, which has an impact on the other rights. The rights of the defence have, in particular, been infringed, since the Council, despite the appropriate request being made in good time, handed over the file concerning the restrictions — which was short and simple to assemble — very belatedly, thereby preventing the applicant from properly preparing its defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, given that there is objective, precise and consistent evidence that supports the argument that the Council, in adopting the restrictive measures, was pursuing aims other than those it claimed to be pursuing.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property inasmuch as that right has been severely restricted without any proper grounds and with no regard for the principle of proportionality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as VEB’s relative position in the various markets has been adversely affected without any justification.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 February 1996 in Case T-294/94: Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials)

text:
13 . 4 . 96           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/7
Action brought on 26 February 1996 by the Kingdom                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                        ( Case C-58/96                                  in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                          ( 96/C 108/ 12 )
                                                                        (') OJ 1996 L 20 , p. 17.
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ 1996 C 46 , p. 11 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 26 February 1996 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ,
Foreign Trade and Development Aid , with an address for                         Removal from the register of Case C-390/93 ( )
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
Girondins .                                                                                ( 96/C 108/ 13 )
The applicant claims that the Court should annul                        By order of 17 January 1996 the President of the Court of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 127/96 of 25 January                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional             from the register of Case C-390/93 : Commission of the
to the tariff quota for imports of bananas during the first             European Communities v . Kingdom of Spain .
quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and
Marilyn ( ] ) and order the Commission to pay the costs .               (') OJ No C 261 , 25 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2 , orders each party to bear its own costs, including the
                     of 27 February 1996                                       costs relating to the application for interim measures.
      in Case T-235/94 : Roberto Galtieri v. European
                            Parliament ( 1 )                             (') OJ No 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
 (Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue
payment — Misuse ofpowers — Legitimate expectations —
                              Damages)
                           ( 96/C 108/14 )
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 28 February 1996
                                                                                in Case T-294/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis
                                                                             v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (')
 In Case T-235/94, Roberto Galtieri, temporary agent of the
 European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by                (Officials — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the
 Harold Wouters, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                  Staff Regulations of Officials)
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bertrand                                                   ( 96/C 108 / 15 )
 Assoignons, 8 Rue des Girondins, v . European Parliament
 ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Kieran Bradley ) — application
 for, first, the annulment of the decision of the European                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
 Parliament, notified by letter of 19 January 1994, to recover
 sums unduly paid to the applicant by way of household                    In Case T-294/94, Konstantinos Dimitriadis, a former
 allowance , secondly, an order that the Parliament reimburse             official of the Court of Auditors of the European
 the sums deducted from his monthly salary and, thirdly, an               Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
 order that the Parliament pay damages and default interest,              Markos Papazissis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address
 the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of               for service at the applicant's address, 4a Boulevard
  A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos,                Grande-Duchesse Charlotte, v . Court of Auditors of the
 Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Steiner,
  a judgment on 27 February in which it:                                   Christos Komninos and Paolo Giusta ) — application for,
                                                                           first, the annulment of Decisions Nos 8543 and 8912 of the
                                                                           Court of Auditors of 8 March and 1 July 1994, rejecting
  1 , dismisses the application;                                           respectively his request for assistance under the first
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13 . 4 . 96
paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials          3 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
of the European Communities and his complaint, and                         seeks, first, annulment of the memorandum of 30 May
secondly, an order that the Court of Auditors should make                   1991 of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
good the damage which the applicant considers he has                       Division and the memorandum of 31 May 1991 from
suffered as a result first of the disputed decisions and                   the Director of Translation and, secondly,
secondly of the insulting language allegedly used towards                  compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those
him by his immediate superior, the Court of First Instance                 documents;
 ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, and
B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez,          4 . annuls the defendant's decision of 1 6 July 1 993, in so far
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  as it states that there is no need to give a decision on the
28 February 1 996 in which it :                                            part of complaint Cont. 1 1 /93 -R regarding the
                                                                           applicant's staff report for the period 1991 to 1992 ;
 1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible, in so far as it
     relates to the claim for compensation under the second           5 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
     paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                      6 . orders the parties to bear their own costs .
2 , dismisses the       remainder     of the application as
     unfounded;                                                       (') OJ No 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
3 , orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
(') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 February 1996
                                                                                in Case T-280/94 : Orlando Lopes v.
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities ( ] )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Officials — Rejection of candidatures for promotion —
                     of 29 February 1996                             Flexible working hours — Applications for annulment and
in Case T-547/93 : Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of                                         compensation)
                the European Communities ( 1 )                                                  ( 96/C 108 / 17 )
(Officials — Staff reports — Rejection of candidatures
for promotion — Applications for annulment and                                         (Language of tbe case: French)
                         compensation)
                          ( 96/C 108/ 16 )                           In Case T-280/94 , Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                        Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the
                                                                     Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny , v .
In Case T-547/93 , Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities ( Agent:
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Timothy Millett ) — application for annulment of two
Luxembourg, represented initially by Marco Fritsch, and
                                                                     decisions rejecting the applicant's candidatures for
then by Marc Kleyr, both of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
                                                                     promotion and a decision refusing him permission to work
address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers,
                                                                      flexible hours, and also for compensation for the material
17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court of Justice of the European                 and non-material damage which he considers he has
Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for
                                                                      suffered as a result of the actions of his immediate superiors
annulment of two memoranda concerning the quality of the
                                                                     and the disputed decisions, the Court of First Instance
applicant's work , his staff report for the period 1991 to            ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as
1992 and two decisions rejecting his candidature for
                                                                     President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung:
promotion , and for compensation for the material and
                                                                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 in
non-material damage which he considers he has suffered as a          which it :
result of the actions of his immediate superiors and of the
disputed decisions, the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as President,              1 , excludes the document annexed to the defendant's reply
and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,               to the questions asked by the Court from the documents
has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                    before the Court;
                                                                      2 , rejects the defendant's request of 19 January 199S to
1 , excludes Annex I to the reply from the documents                       have a document annexed to the reply in Case T-280/94
     before the Court;                                                     and certain passages relating thereto removed from the
                                                                           documents before the Court;
2 , rejects the application made to the Court on 13 October
     1 994, and excludes the document annexed thereto from            3 , annuls the defendant's decision, communicated to
     the file;                                                             the applicant on 11 February 1994, rejecting his


title: Case T-547/12: Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/21

         Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
   (Case T-547/12)
   2013/C 46/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands); and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht) (represented by: K. Bacon and D. Piccinin, Barristers, G. Morgan and C. Drew, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency, contained in its letter of 26 November 2012, refusing to validate the applicants’ application for a marketing authorisation for its generic version of abacavir/lamivudine; and

               —

               Order the European Medicines Agency to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the refusal to validate their application for the authorisation of a generic version of a fixed dose combination medicinal product, on the basis that the product was protected by a ten year period of exclusivity is contrary to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) and Directive No 2001/83/EC (2) properly interpreted. In particular, the applicants contend that the marketing authorisation holder for the product is not entitled to enjoy a ten year period of data exclusivity, as the product is a fixed dose combination combining two active substances which have been supplied and used within the EU as components of a number of different medicinal products for some years. The applicants therefore contend that the product falls within the same global marketing authorisation as the earlier marketing authorisations for its component parts within the meaning of the second sub-paragraph of Article 6(1) of Directive No 2001/83. Accordingly, the applicants state that it did not enjoy any further period of data exclusivity after the expiry of the data exclusivity relating to these authorisations.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (Text with EEA relevance)

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use


title: Case T-218/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) v OHIM — Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/12

         Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) v OHIM — Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS)
   (Case T-218/06)
   (2006/C 237/22)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2006 — Appeal number R 74/2006-1 — in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS’ for goods in Classes 5 and 10.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EURIM-PHARM’ (Community trade mark No 667 899 and national mark) and the trade mark right for ‘Eurim-Pharm GmbH’ for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition and refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Rules 48, 49 and 96 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2), infringement of Article 78 and Article 78a of Regulation No 40/94 and infringement of the principle by which OHIM is bound by its own decisions and the principle of proportionality.

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

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


title: Case T-563/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)
   (Case T-563/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 406/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1539/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEDISPLAY as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 5.10.2014.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of July 1999 in Case T-194/95: Area Cova and Others v Council of the European Union (Fisheries - Conservation of the resources of the sea - Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic fisheries - Greenland halibut - Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
2.10.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/15
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of July 1999                                                              of 8 July 1999
in Case T-194/95: Area Cova and Others v Council of the                    in Case T-12/96: Area Cova and Others v Council of
                       European Union (1)                                  the European Union and Commission of the European
(Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea                                               Communities (1)
— Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the
North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut —                        (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea
Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action                  — Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the
              for annulment — Inadmissibility)                             North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut —
                                                                           Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action
                         (1999/C 281/29)                                                  for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                   (1999/C 281/30)
In Case T-194/95: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
Armadora José Pereira SA, established in Vigo, Armadores                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pesqueros de Aldan SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA,
established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar               In Case T-12/96: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established             Armadora José Pereira SA. established in Vigo, Armadores
in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SA, established in Moaña (Spain),              Pesqueros de Aldan SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA,
Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandon SA,                     established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar
established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo,             SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established
Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA,                 in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SA, established in Moaña (Spain),
established in Vigo, Juana Oya Perez, residing in Marı́n (Spain),          Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandon SA,
Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Moradiña SA,                  established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo,
established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in                Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA,
Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu,                  established in Vigo, Juana Oya Perez, residing in Marı́n (Spain),
Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA,                  Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Moradiña SA,
established in Vigo, Pesquerias Bigaro Narval SA, established              established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in
in Vigo, Pesquera Cies SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina            Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu,
SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in                 Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA,
Cangas, Pesquerias Marinenses SA, established in Marı́n, Pes-              established in Vigo, Pesquerias Bigaro Narval SA, established
querias Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA,              in Vigo, Pesquera Cies SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina
established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo,                  SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in
Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores                   Cangas, Pesquerias Marinenses SA, established in Marı́n, Pes-
de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), established in Vigo, Asociación             querias Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA,
Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerias                 established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo,
Varias (Anavar), established in Vigo, and Asociación de                   Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores
Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE), established in Vigo,               de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), established in Vigo, Asociación
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar,               Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerias
Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, and Maria Ventura                Varias (Anavar), established in Vigo, and Asociación de
Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service                 Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE), established in Vigo,
c/o Cabinet Quatrecasas, 78 avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels,                  represented by Anntonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar,
supported by Xunta de Galicia, represented by Victor Manuel                Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, and Maria Ventura
Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, of the Santiago de Compostela Bar,             Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service c/o
and Antonio Hierro Hernández-Mora, of the Madrid Bar, c/o                 Cabinet Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels, v
Fundación Galicia-Europa, 105 avenue Milcamps, Brussels,                  Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery, Ger-
v Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery,                     mán-Luis Ramos Ruano and Ramón Torrent) and Commission
Germán-Luis Ramos Ruano and Ramón Torrent) — appli-                      of the European Communities (Agents: Thomas Van Rijn and
cation for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1761/95                 Juan Guerra Fernandez) — application for annulment of
of 29 June 1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of 30 October 1995
(EC) No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation                  concerning the stopping of fishing for Greenland halibut by
and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat-              vessels flying the flag of a Member State (OJ 1995 L 262,
ory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral               p. 27) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ 1995                  composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 1999, the
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,            operative part of which is as follows:
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 1999, the              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                           2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of
                                                                               the Council and of the Commission.
2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of
    the Council. The intervener is to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.


title: Case F-42/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — CU v EESC (Civil service — Temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision to terminate a contract)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — CU v EESC
   (Case F-42/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision to terminate a contract))
   2014/C 421/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CU (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented initially by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Pascua Mateo and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment contract and application for compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 October 2012 and 31 January 2013 terminating CU’s temporary staff contract for an indefinite period;

               2.

               Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to pay CU the amount of EUR 25  000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Declares that the European Economic and Social Committee is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by CU.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013, p. 61.