title: Case T-5/00: Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/33
Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London             — in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal)                    5(1) of that decision to the sum of EUR 1 000;
— application for compensation for the non-material loss
alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the
Commission’s alleged failure to provide a national court with
information in accordance with its obligations under the EC              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Treaty — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P.
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on
16 March 2000, in which it orders the following:
                                                                         Pleas in law and principal arguments
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant is a sectorial association established in 1918 to
                                                                         protect the common interests of stockkeeping wholesalers of
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                 electrotechnical products. In 1995 it had 52 members, includ-
                                                                         ing various larger undertakings and numerous smaller whole-
                                                                         salers. In response to a complaint submitted in 1991, the
                                                                         Commission in 1999 adopted a decision in which it found
                                                                         that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC by entering
                                                                         into a collective exclusive dealing arrangement intended to
                                                                         prevent supplies to non-members of the FEG, on the basis of
                                                                         an agreement with the Nederlandse Agentenvereniging op
                                                                         Elektrotechnisch Gebied (‘NAVEG’) and of practices concerted
                                                                         with suppliers not represented in NAVEG. The Commission
                                                                         further found that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC
Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse                         by directly and indirectly restricting the freedom of its
Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektro-                   members to determine their selling prices independently. On
technisch Gebied against the Commission of the European                  account of those infringements, a fine of EUR 4.4 million was
                          Communities                                    imposed on the applicant. The applicant seeks annulment of
                                                                         the decision on the following grounds. Since it took the
                                                                         Commission more than eight years to adopt that decision, it
                           (Case T-5/00)                                 infringed the principle that decisions must invariably be given
                                                                         within a reasonable period. Furthermore, the rights of the
                                                                         defence have been violated, in that the Commission bases
                         (2000/C 149/64)                                 various essential elements of its argument on documents
                                                                         which were not mentioned in the statement of objections. In
                                                                         addition, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                         infringed Article 81(1) EC in a number of respects. First, it
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         based its decision on an incorrect delineation of the relevant
                                                                         market. Second, it wrongly inferred from the available factual
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                material that the applicant had infringed the notification rules
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               by entering into a collective exclusive dealing arrangement
European Communities on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse                   intended to prevent supplies to non-members of the FEG. It
Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotech-               also wrongly inferred from the factual material that, by
nisch Gebied (FEG), established in The Hague, represented by             concluding horizontal pricing agreements, FEG had infringed
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, of the law firm De Brauw            the notification rules. In the alternative, the applicant claims
Blackstone Westbroek NV, The Hague, with an address for                  that the Commission has infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue               No 17, by imposing on the applicant, in the light of the
Goethe.                                                                  circumstances of the case, a fine of EUR 4.4 million.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.2000.
— annul the Commission’s decision of 26 October 1999 (1)
    concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
    Treaty in Case IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve
    Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Ge-
    bied and Technische Unie;
— in the alternative, annul Article 5(1) of that decision;


title: Case C-543/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2009 — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2009 — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-543/09)
   2010/C 80/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG

      Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Intervening parties: Go Yellow GmbH, Telix AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that Member States may require undertakings which assign telephone numbers to subscribers to make available data relating to subscribers to whom the undertaking in question has not itself assigned telephone numbers for the purpose of the provision of publicly available directory enquiry services and directories, in so far as that undertaking has such data in its possession?

               2.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative:
               Must Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (2) be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of the abovementioned obligation by the national legislature is conditional upon the consent of, or at least the lack of any objection by, the other telephone service provider or its subscribers to the transmission of the data?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 201, P. 37.


title: Case T-211/12: Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/12

         Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)
   (Case T-211/12)
   2012/C 209/21
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG (Ehrenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kirchgäßner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG (Neuss, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 351/2011-1 as follows: The decision of the Opposition Division is annulled to the extent to which it has been the subject of the appeal, and the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — application No 8 178 576

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Silesia’ for goods in Classes 2, 3, 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (System of fishing quotas — 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997 fishing years)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

   (System of fishing quotas - 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997 fishing years)
   (2005/C 217/15)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H.-P. Hartvig) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde) — three actions under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 June and 4 August 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, having failed

                           —

                           to establish the appropriate detailed rules for utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for each of the following fishing years — 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997;

                           —

                           in respect of each of those fishing years to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the conservation of fisheries resources through the supervision of fishing activities and appropriate monitoring of the unloading and registration of catches;

                           —

                           in respect of each of those fishing years within a reasonable period of time provisionally to prohibit fishing with vessels which fly its flag or are registered within its territory when the applicable quota was deemed to have been exhausted; and

                           —

                           to notify the Commission of the European Communities of the implementation of fishing bans in 1988,

                     the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (pre-1993 fishing years), Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (post-1993 fishing years), Article 1 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (pre-1993 fishing years) and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (post-1993 fishing years).

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the applications.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003

      OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.


title: Case F-43/12: Action brought on 30 March 2012 — ZZ v EIGE

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/21

         Action brought on 30 March 2012 — ZZ v EIGE
   (Case F-43/12)
   2012/C 200/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck, S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the EIGE refusing the applicant’s request to be paid a management allowance for the period from 1 June 2010 to 30 September 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 January 2012 of the Director of the EIGE refusing the applicant’s request to be paid a management allowance for the period from 1 June 2010 to 30 September 2011, confirmed, following the applicant’s complaint, by the decision of 27 February 2012 of the human resources officer of the EIGE;

               —

               order payment of the management allowance for the period from 1 June 2010 to 30 September 2011, together with interest on account of late payment the amount of which must be calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, with effect from 30 September 2011;

               —

               order the European Institute for Gender Equality to pay the costs.


title: Case T-61/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-61/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/120)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-440/03 (1)

   (2005/C 182/60)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-440/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-294/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/31

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-294/05)
   (2005/C 217/60)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström van Lier and Günter Wilms, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing, from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, to establish and credit its own resources in connection with the import of war material and goods for civilian or military use and by failing to pay late payment interest thereon, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, as valid before 31 May 2000, and thereafter under Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   From 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, the Kingdom of Sweden failed to establish and credit its own resources in connection with the import of war materials and goods for civilian or military use, also by failing to pay late payment interest thereon. The Swedish Government contends that Article 296(1)(b) EC gives Member States the right unilaterally to grant exemption from duty for imports of war material and of goods with dual usage (civilian and military) on grounds of defence economics, to protect military secrecy and to comply with international agreements made regarding the guarantee of military security. The Commission submits that Member States do not have the right, by reference to Article 296(1)(b) EC, to withdraw their own resources from the Community budget. In all the circumstances, Member States have the burden of proving that the exemption from duty of war material and of goods with dual usage and the consequent failure to establish and credit their own resources is a necessary measure for the protection of their essential security interests. The Commission takes the view that the Kingdom of Sweden has not satisfied that burden of proof.


title: Case T-146/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2008 — Sanofi-Aventis v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ATURION — Earlier national mark URION — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2008 — Sanofi-Aventis v OHIM
   (Case T-146/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ATURION - Earlier national mark URION - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 79/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: GD Searle LLC (New York, New York, United States of America)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 (Case R 227/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and GD Searle LLC.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-571/08: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Information injunction — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/36

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-571/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Information injunction - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 234/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-532/14: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Alsharghawi v Council (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/23

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Alsharghawi v Council
   (Case T-532/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 056/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: E. Moutet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53), and, secondly, Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137 (OJ 2011 L 78, p. 24), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Cases C-395/01 and C-417/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of 8 October 2001 and 17 October 2001 in the appeals brought by Herbert Bregenzer

text:
C 3/14                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                (C-395/01) and 17 October 2001 (C417/01) by the Unabhän-
beamt (Austria) by order of 12 September 2001 in                      giger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg (Independent
the case of Ortner Gesellschaft m.b.H. v Allgemeine                   Administrative Chamber of the Land Vorarlberg), which were
                   Unfallversicherungsanstalt                         received at the Court Registry on 10 October 2001 and
                                                                      22 October 2001 for a preliminary ruling in the appeals
                                                                      brought by Herbert Bregenzer on the following questions:
                        (Case C-379/01)
                         (2002/C 3/19)
                                                                      1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC (1)
                                                                           of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
                                                                           laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
European Communities by order of 12 September 2001 by                      the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
the Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),                Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
which was received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2001,                20 March 2000, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29; hereinafter
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ortner Gesellschaft                ‘the labelling Directive’), under which — subject to
m.b.H. v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt on the follow-              Community provisions applicable to natural mineral
ing questions:                                                             waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses,
                                                                           the labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
1.   Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of                foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,                     human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     regulations and administrative provisions relating to the             ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     application of review procedures to the award of public               offence when marketing foodstuffs:
     supply and public works contracts to be interpreted as
     meaning that any person seeking the award of a specific
     pending public contract is entitled to institute a review             (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
     procedure?                                                                  in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                                                                                inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
2.   In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:                     tain health, or to create the impression of any such
                                                                                effect;
     Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as
     meaning that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the
     contracting authority, but the review body finds in the
     course of the review procedure that the contracting                   (b) to refer to case histories, recommendations made by
     authority would have been bound to eliminate it, the                        doctors or medical experts’ reports;
     tenderer has been or risks being harmed by the infringe-
     ment alleged by him — in this case the finding by the
     contracting authority that a rival tenderer submitted the
     best bid — and that he must therefore have the right to               (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
     bring a review procedure?                                                   tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                of members of the health-care professions or of
                                                                                sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
(1) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                             to health-care activities?
                                                                      2.   Do the labelling Directive or Articles 28 and 30 EC
                                                                           preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
                                                                           circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
                                                                           mation such as that described in question (1) to be affixed
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                     thereto only after prior authorisation by the competent
Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of                       federal minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is
8 October 2001 and 17 October 2001 in the appeals                          that the health-related information is consistent with
                 brought by Herbert Bregenzer                              protecting the consumer from being misled?
                (Cases C-395/01 and C-417/01)
                         (2002/C 3/20)                                (1) OJ L 33, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 8 October 2001


title: Case T-317/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2007 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/45

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2007 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)
   (Case T-317/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/86)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-286/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRE DE GAZATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark TORRE DE GAZATE — Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRE DE GAZATE)
   (Case T-286/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark TORRE DE GAZATE - Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
   (2009/C 44/74)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and J. García Murillo, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL (Tomelloso, Spain) (represented by: J. Casajuana Espinosa, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R-421/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-639/11: Action brought on 13 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/16

         Action brought on 13 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-639/11)
   2012/C 73/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, G. Zavvos and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by making the registration in Poland of private motor vehicles which are new or have been previously registered in other Member States and which have their steering equipment on the right-hand side dependent on the transfer of the steering wheel to the left-hand side, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2a of Directive 70/311/EEC relating to type approval of steering equipment, (1) Article 4(3) of Framework Directive 2007/46/EC on EC type approval for motor vehicles (2) and Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission argues that the Republic of Poland is in breach of Article 2a of individual Directive 70/311/EEC, Article 4(3) of Framework Directive 2007/46/EC and Article 34 TFEU.
   Traffic in the Republic of Poland drives on the right. In order for a motor vehicle to be registered in Poland, Polish provisions require a certificate attesting that the vehicle has passed a technical inspection. Pursuant to regulations issued by the Minister for Infrastructure, (3) the outcome of the technical inspection of vehicles with the steering wheel on the right-hand side from the outset cannot be positive (that is to say, the technical condition is deemed not to be in accordance with the technical requirements in force). As a result, private motor vehicles which have the steering wheel on the right-hand side and which have been approved in Member States in which traffic drives on the left (the United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus) cannot be registered in Poland. The Polish authorities also fail to take account of the fact that such motor vehicles may previously have been registered in other Member States in which traffic drives on the right.
   In the Commission’s view, the fact that it is impossible to register, in Poland, private motor vehicles (new and second-hand) which have been brought to Poland from a Member State in which traffic drives on the left, primarily by Polish nationals taking advantage of the benefit of free movement within the European Union cannot find justification in any overriding requirement of public interest in the form of ensuring road safety.
   If motor vehicles which have their steering equipment on the right-hand side and which are not registered in Poland may, without any restriction, be used in Poland, the prohibition on registration of such vehicles is not, in the Commission’s view, an appropriate or, in any event, proportionate means by which to achieve the declared objective.
   In the opinion of the Commission, it is precisely the long-term use of such a vehicle in traffic on the right that results in the acquisition of a routine and does not constitute, from the point of view of road safety, a greater threat than occasional/temporary transport by means of such a vehicle. Furthermore, there are other, less drastic means, in the form, for instance, of an additional mirror, which facilitate a vehicle with the steering wheel on the right when overtaking in traffic which uses the right side of the road.

      (1)  Council Directive of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(II), p. 375).

      (2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

      (3)  Paragraph 9(2) of the Regulation of 31 December 2002, Point 5.1 of Annex I to the Regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 16 December 2003 and Point 6.1 of Annex I to the Regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 18 September 2009 replacing and repealing the Regulation of 16 December 2003.


title: Case C-15/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 January 2011 — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 January 2011 — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien
   (Case C-15/11)
   2011/C 113/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Leopold Sommer

      Defendant: Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Directive 2004/114/EC (1) of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (‘the Student Directive’) applicable in Austria to a Bulgarian student having regard to the first or third paragraphs of point 14 of section 1 (Freedom of movement for persons) of Annex VI to the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria, List referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol (2): transitional measures, Bulgaria?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does Union law, in particular Article 17 of the Student Directive, preclude a national rule which, like the provisions of the Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz which are relevant in the main proceedings, provides in all cases for an examination of the situation of the labour market prior to the grant of a work permit for an employer to employ a student who has already resided in Austria for more than one year (Article 17(3) of the Student Directive) and additionally makes the grant of a work permit subject to further conditions if the fixed maximum number of foreign nationals employed has been exceeded.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.

      (2)  Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union — Annex VI: List referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol: transitional measures, Bulgaria — 2. Freedom of movement for persons; (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 104).


title: Case T-564/10: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014  — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in animal feed phosphates — Fines — Payment in instalments — Commission decision requiring a bank guarantee to be set up — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v European Commission
   (Case T-564/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in animal feed phosphates - Fines - Payment in instalments - Commission decision requiring a bank guarantee to be set up - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))
   2014/C 261/43
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA (Lordelo, Portugal); and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Calheiros and A. de Albuquerque, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, V. Bottka and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted by M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment in part of the decision allegedly set out in the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 8 October 2010 concerning payment of the fine imposed on the applicants under Commission Decision C (2010) 5004 final of 20 July 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.886 — Animal feed phosphates), in so far as that letter requires the applicants to provide a bank guarantee from a bank that has received a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating in order for the application to pay in instalments to be granted.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case T-65/14: Action brought on 28 January 2014  — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/43

         Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council
   (Case T-65/14)
   2014/C 135/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law alleging failure to state reasons in breach of Article 296 TFEU, in so far as the implementing regulation which includes the applicant on the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures does not specifically indicate the legal basis on which it was taken.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis, in so far as the legal basis of the implementing regulation in dispute is Regulation No 267/2012, (1) which ought to be held to be inapplicable to the applicant in that, first, it was taken in breach of the obligation to state reasons set by Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, second, Article 23(2)(d) of it, which constitutes the legal basis for including the applicant in the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, infringes the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third, fourth, fifth and six pleas in law alleging, respectively, (i) an error of law; (ii) an error of fact and a manifest error of assessment, (iii) an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection and (iv) infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Seventh plea in law alleging that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), which constitutes the legal basis of the penalty which is imposed on the applicant must be declared to be inapplicable to it as that provision is contrary to the treaties, to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims that the decision to include it in the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures must therefore be annulled.

               5.

               Eighth plea in law alleging that the disputed sanction became unlawful as from 20 January 2014 since the Council recognised on that date that Iran no longer pursued nuclear activities which are the cause of the sanction. The applicant claims that the sanction therefore loses its objective.

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

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).


title: Case F-85/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 October 2007 —Bellantone v Court of Auditors (Staff cases — Officials — Member of the temporary staff appointed as an official — Notice of termination of employment — Severance grant — Daily subsistence allowance — Material damage)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 October 2007 —Bellantone v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-85/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Member of the temporary staff appointed as an official - Notice of termination of employment - Severance grant - Daily subsistence allowance - Material damage)
   (2007/C 283/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerardo Bellantone (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors of 30 March 2006 rejecting the complaint of the applicant, a former member of the temporary staff appointed as an official, seeking payment of the balance of the allowance in lieu of additional notice, of the severance grant and of the daily subsistence allowance, and, second, a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bellantone to bear three quarters of his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of Mr Bellantone's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 18.


title: Case C-562/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-562/16)
   (2017/C 046/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
               Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-240/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Case T-240/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))
   (2016/C 118/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-73/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:16) seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-339/03: Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/22/EC — Keeping of wild animals in zoos — Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-339/03: Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/22/EC - Keeping of wild animals in zoos - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)
   (2004/C 300/44)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-339/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Schieferer and M. van Beek) v the Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Acting President of the Fourth Chamber, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, in the various länder, with the exception of Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Baden-Württemberg, Niedersachsen, Berlin, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringen, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive.

               2)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: Case C-157/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-157/17)
   (2017/C 168/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?

               2.

               Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax — which is, however, granted to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution — in case this might constitute a hindrance to that fund’s efforts to attract investors living or established in the Netherlands?


title: Case C-408/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Município de Barcelos (Portugal) lodged on 23 October 2009 — Município de Barcelos v Portuguese State

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Município de Barcelos (Portugal) lodged on 23 October 2009 — Município de Barcelos v Portuguese State
   (Case C-408/09)
   2010/C 134/22
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Município de Barcelos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Município de Barcelos

      Defendant: Portuguese State
   By order of 12 February 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Município de Barcelos.


               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/38

         (2006/C 261/76)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

      OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

      OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

      OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

      OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

      OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-356/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — O, S

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — O, S
   (Case C-356/11)
   2011/C 269/74
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: O, S

      Other party: Maahanmuuttovirasto

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a third-country national from being refused a residence permit because of lack of means of subsistence in a family situation in which a child who is a citizen of the Union is cared for by his spouse and the third-country national is not that child’s parent or carer?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must the effect of Article 20 TFEU be assessed differently if the third-country national who does not have a residence permit, his spouse, and the child who is cared for by the spouse and has Union citizenship live together?


title: Case T-128/06: Action brought on  28 April 2006  — Japan Tobacco v OHIM — Torrefacção Camelo (figurative mark CAMELO)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/21

         Action brought on 28 April 2006 — Japan Tobacco v OHIM — Torrefacção Camelo (figurative mark CAMELO)
   (Case T-128/06)
   (2006/C 154/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Japan Tobacco Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ortiz López, S. Ferrandis González and E. Ochoa Santamaría, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Torrefacção Camelo L da
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 February 2006 in Case R 669/2003-2 and give a judgment in which, varying that decision, it [the Court of First Instance] declares that it is necessary to apply the prohibition in Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation in this case and consequently, recognising the merits of the arguments presented by Japan Tobacco, decide to refuse registration of Community trade mark no. 1469121;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Torrefacção Camelo L da

      Community trade mark concerned: Mark containing figurative elements (camel, pyramids, palm trees) and the name CAFÉ TORREFACTO CAMPO MAIOR CAMELO CAFÉ ESPECIAL PURO Torrefacção Camelo L da CAMPO MAIOR-PORTUGAL, for goods in Class 30 (application no. 1469121)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word and figurative marks ‘CAMEL’ for goods in Classes 22 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and also errors in the conduct of the proceedings and infringement of Articles 74 and 79 of that regulation.


title: Case T-219/14: Action brought on 2 April 2014  — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/49

         Action brought on 2 April 2014 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission
   (Case T-219/14)
   2014/C 175/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: T. Ledda, S. Sau, G. Roberti. G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, the contested decision in so far as:

                           —

                           it classified the compensation paid for public services pursuant to Regional Law No 15 of 7 August 2012 and the capital finance approved by the general meeting of Saremar’s shareholders on 15 June 2012 as State aid;

                           —

                           it found those measures to be incompatible with the internal market and ordered that they be recovered;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Article 4(f) of Decision 2012/21/EU and point 9 of the European Union Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) are unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the Decision of the European Commission of 22 January 2014 on aid measures SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C) and SA.32016 (2011/C) implemented by the Region of Sardinia in favour of Saremar. That decision found to be incompatible with the internal market the aid granted by the applicant to Saremar for the provision of services of general economic interest in the form of a cabotage transport service between Sardinia and mainland Italy, which operated between 2011 and 2012 and was intended to make the service as affordable as possible for users.
   The applicant relies on six pleas in law in support of its action.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 106(2) [TFEU], incorrectly assessing the facts and failing to state adequate reasons, in so far as, in addition to failing correctly to identify Saremar’s public service obligations, it did not confine itself checking whether the Member State had made a manifest error, but intervened in the substance of the Member State’s decision, thus interfering with decisions on economic and social policy.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU by taking the view that the requirements laid down by the Altmark line of case-law are not satisfied in the present case. In that regard, the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts and failed to state adequate reasons by concluding, inter alia, that the market provided appropriate guarantees that were sufficient for the purpose of meeting the public service requirements identified by the Region.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant also infringed Article 106(2) TFEU and Decisions 2005/824/EC and 2012/21/EU, incorrectly assessed the facts and failed to state adequate reasons, in so far as it (i) found that Decision 2005/824/EC was not applicable ratione temporis and (ii) concluded, in any event, that the principles established by those decisions were not met in the circumstances of the present case.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 106(2) TFEU, incorrectly assessed the facts and failed to state adequate reasons, in so far as it classified Saremar as an undertaking in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and Restructuring Firms in Difficulty.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 106(2) TFEU and incorrectly assessed the facts and law, in so far as it concluded that the requirements laid down by the European Union Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) for ensuring that the measure in question was compatible were not satisfied.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 107(1) TFEU and incorrectly assessed the facts and law as regards the nature of the recapitalisation of Saremar carried out by the Region of Sardinia by finding that it gave Saremar an advantage and was in any event incompatible with the market-economy investor principle.


title: Case C-238/04: Action brought on 7 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/12

         Action brought on 7 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-238/04)
   (2004/C 190/20)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by O. Beynet and A. Whelan, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to transpose correctly Articles 1 and 2(3) of Directive 90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, (1) as amended by Directives 95/51/EC (2) and 96/19/EC, (3) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   French legal rules entail a problem of compatibility with Community law on the conditions for licensing the provision of telecommunications services by cable providers.
   As regards the provision of telephony services, French legislation imposes an obligation to consult communes, or associations of communes, before the issue of a licence for the provision of a telephone service on cable networks. That obligation gives rise to a number of problems from the point of view of Article 2(3) of Directive 90/388, as amended by Directive 96/19/EC, namely lack of transparency in the consultation procedure, the disproportionate degree of discretion afforded to town councils when coming to their decisions, uncertainty as to whether the procedure is objective on account of the links between certain town councils and providers, the discriminatory aspect of a procedure which does not apply to other providers of telecommunications services and risk of discrimination as between the various cable providers.
   The rules by virtue of which cable providers must systematically inform all communes in which their networks are installed impose on those providers an additional obligation in contrast to the general freedom to provide services applicable to other providers of telecommunications services. Since there are no objective factors such as to justify this differential treatment, the French rules are discriminatory in this respect and infringe the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(3) of Directive 90/388/EEC, as amended by Directives 95/51/EC and 96/19/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 192 of 24.7.1990, p. 10.

      (2)  Commission Directive 95/51/EC of 18 October 1995 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the restrictions on the use of cable television networks for the provision of already liberalised telecommunications services (OJ L 256 of 26.10.1995, p. 49).

      (3)  Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets (OJ L 73 of 13.3.1996, p. 13).


title: Case T-317/04: Action brought on 3 August 2004 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/47

         Action brought on 3 August 2004 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-317/04)
   (2004/C 262/89)
   Language of the case: Danish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 August 2004 by the Kingdom of Denmark, represented by Jørgen Molde, assisted by Peter Biering and Kim Lundgaard Hansen, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 concerning Denmark's measures in favour of TV2/Danmark;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 concerning Denmark's measures in favour of TV2/Danmark;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 concerning Denmark's measures in favour of TV2/Danmark;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision, the Commission approved the aid granted to TV2/DANMARK A/S from 1995 to 2002 in the form of licence-fee resources and certain other measures as compatible with the common market, except for an amount of DKK 628.2 million which, in the Commission's view, constitutes unlawful State aid which the Kingdom of Denmark is obliged to recover from TV2/DANMARK A/S.
   The Danish Government states in support of its action that the Commission's decision of 19 May 2004:

               —

               fails to comply with essential procedural requirements;

               —

               infringes Article 295 EC, the provisions of the Treaty concerning State aid contained in Article 87(1) EC and Article 86(2) EC and the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting; and

               —

               infringes Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and Commission Directive 80/723/EEC. (2)

         The Danish Government puts forward the following in support of its principal action for annulment:

               —

               that the principle that both sides must be heard has been disregarded, which has deprived the Danish Government of the opportunity to defend itself, thereby affecting the outcome in the Commission's decision;

               —

               that neither the licence-fee resources transferred to TV2 nor the advertising revenue, which was transferred to TV2 through the TV2 fund until it was abolished in 1997, are State aid, since they are not State resources within the meaning of Article 87;

               —

               that the capital built up in TV2 from 1995 to 2002 constitutes reasonable earnings in the performance of its public service obligations and that, accordingly, it is not 'excess compensation' constituting State aid contrary to the EC Treaty;

               —

               that the Commission's calculation of ‘excess compensation’ is incorrect;

               —

               that there is no State aid, even though the transferred funds exceed TV2's net costs inherent in the performance of its public service obligations, since the funds have in fact not been used to cross-subsidise commercial activities and therefore do not distort competition;

               —

               that any State funds transferred to TV2 must be considered to have been transferred in accordance with the criterion of the private investor in a market economy and that it is therefore not State aid.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22.3.1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25.6.1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35).


title: Case C-132/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/24

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-132/14)
   2014/C 175/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union; (1)

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Parliament seeks the annulment of Council Regulation No 1385/2013 which the Council adopted on the basis of Article 349 TFEU.
   The Parliament contests the choice of legal basis operated by the Council as Article 349 TFEU cannot provide a legal basis for all the measures adopted, but only some of them consisting of derogations from the application of EU law to Mayotte. The contested regulation also implements measures which fall within the areas of the common fisheries policy and the protection of public health, without those measures being based on the structural social and economic situation specific to Mayotte.
   In the opinion of the Parliament, the act in question should therefore have been adopted on the basis of Articles 43(2), 168(4)(b) and 349 TFEU jointly, and not on the basis of Article 349 alone.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86


title: Case C-640/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Greenpeace Energy eG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2016 in Case T-382/15, Greenpeace Energy eG v European Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Greenpeace Energy eG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2016 in Case T-382/15, Greenpeace Energy eG v European Commission

   (Case C-640/16 P)
   (2017/C 038/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Greenpeace Energy eG (represented by: D. Fouquet, S. Michaels and J. Nysten, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 26 September 2016 in Case T-382/15, Greenpeace Energy eG, in regard to the appellant,

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for the purposes of a decision,

               —

               order the respondent to pay the full costs of the proceedings, including legal and travel costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant raises the following five grounds of appeal in support of its appeal:

               1.

               The General Court evidently took the view that the third variation in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU requires that regulatory acts that are challengeable pursuant to that provision must have general application. Such a legal position must, however, be regarded as erroneous in law, especially in view of the wording as well as the origin of the provision, including the intention of the European Union legislature.

               2.

               The General Court appears to assume that the requirement of direct concern in the case of legal acts which entail no implementing measures involves two separate criteria that are subject to separate examination. In the present case, however, that assumption must be refuted since, on the one hand, no further implementing measures within the meaning of that provision, neither through the United Kingdom nor through the European Commission, are necessary and, on the other hand, immediate effects on the market occur with the granting of aid, that is to say, immediate effects on competition are felt by the appellant.

               3.

               The General Court criticises the inadequacy of the appellant’s submission that it is directly and individually concerned. However, it thereby misjudges the information submitted or, at the very least, fails to take it sufficiently into account.

               4.

               The General Court appears to take the view that a possibility of individualisation under the second variation in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU following the Plaumann case-law must already be rejected if there may be other undertakings that are affected by the effects on competition of the granting of aid in the same way as the appellant. In view of the case-law, however, in particular in Case C-309/89 Codorniu, this appears to be a legally incorrect, and, moreover, a restrictive, interpretation. Furthermore, the appellant refers to its submissions concerning the facts in the application, which make clear a sufficient possibility of individualisation but which clearly were not, or were not adequately, taken into account by the General Court.

               5.

               The General Court appears to assume that effective legal protection against a Commission decision authorising aid can be provided through national courts. This would mean that the EU legislature, by imposing an obligation on the Member States to provide sufficient remedies (Article 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU), wishes to leave the review of individual acts of the EU institutions, such as the European Commission, to the courts of the Member States. This view cannot, however, be followed, whether by reason of the case-law of the Court of Justice on EU acts and the existing remedies or, in particular, by reason of the division of powers between national courts and the European Commission in State-aid law, and must accordingly be treated as constituting an error of law.


title: Case T-177/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  9 January 2006  — Finland v Commission (Procedural issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Acts not producing binding legal effects — European Communities' own resources — Infringement proceedings — Interest for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Negotiation of an agreement on conditional payment)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/19

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2006 — Finland v Commission
   (Case T-177/05) (1)

   (Procedural issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Acts not producing binding legal effects - European Communities' own resources - Infringement proceedings - Interest for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Negotiation of an agreement on conditional payment)
   (2006/C 74/39)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties:

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005 whereby the Commission refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153 of 25.6.2005.


title: Case T-341/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava and Others v OHIM (TXAKOLI) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community collective verbal mark TXAKOLI — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 66(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava and Others v OHIM (TXAKOLI)
   (Case T-341/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community collective verbal mark TXAKOLI - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 66(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 186/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava (Amurrio, Spain); Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Bizkaia (Leioa, Spain); and Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Getaria (Getaria, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 197/2009-2), concerning an application for the registration of the word sign TXAKOLI as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava, Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Bizkaia and Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Getaria are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-5/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of  2 January 2006  in Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 January 2006 in Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-5/06)
   (2006/C 74/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf (Germany) of 2 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 9 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jülich AG and Hauptzollamt Aachen on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 (1) of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector to be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the exportable surplus, account should be taken only of those export quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup in respect of which export refunds have actually been paid?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 (2) of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003 (3) of 27 June 2003, invalid?

               3.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: Is Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector to be interpreted as meaning that, when determining both the exportable surplus and the average loss per tonne of sugar, all exports are to be taken into account, even where no export refunds were paid in respect of a portion of those exports in the relevant marketing year?

               4.

               If Questions 1, 2 or 3 are to be answered in the affirmative: Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 (4) of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year invalid?

      (1)  OJ L 178, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 50, p 40.

      (3)  OJ L 160, p. 33.

      (4)  OJ L 316, p 64.


title: Case F-49/06: Action brought on  9 May 2006  — Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/26

         Action brought on 9 May 2006 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-49/06)
   (2006/C 154/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision not to promote the applicant in 2005 and any connected and/or subsequent decision;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on:

               1.

               The effects for the 2004 appraisal exercise of a falsification of his staff report relating to the 2003 exercise,

               2.

               Breach of the principles of legal certainty for staff, equal treatment of officials and sound administration in the application to the applicant of the new appraisal system developed by the defendant,

               3.

               The fact that one of his colleagues was unlawfully asked to carry out more senior duties on a temporary basis,

               4.

               The fact that one of his hierarchical superiors carried out his duties unlawfully,

               5.

               That superior's lack of integrity,

               6.

               Several instances of misuse of powers and a breach of the Treaty.


title: Case T-413/07: Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Bayern Innovativ v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/24

         Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Bayern Innovativ v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)
   (Case T-413/07)
   (2008/C 8/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Beschorner, B. Glaser, C. Thomas, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Life Sciences Partners Perstock N.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal No R 1545/2006-1 of 2 August 2007 regarding Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’;

               —

               to reject the opposition No B 795 270 of the intervener in its entirety;

               —

               to order the OHIM to register the Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’ as published;

               —

               to order the other party to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and to order the intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark consisting of a coloured representation of a spiral DNA chain, an oval and a grid and containing the verbal elements ‘LifeScience’ written below for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 41, 42 — application No 3 585 957

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Life Sciences Partners Perstock N.V.

      Mark or sign cited: The figurative Community trade mark consisting of a representation of a naked woman wrapped in a DNA chain and containing the word elements ‘Life Sciences Partners’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — application No 2 136 026.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of (EC) Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-697/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2015 — MB srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2015 — MB srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT)
   (Case C-697/15)
   (2016/C 106/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MB srl

      Defendant: Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT)

      Question referred

   Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out either in the tender rules or on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case C-3/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2017 — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2017 — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Ministre de l’économie et des finances
   (Case C-3/17)
   (2017/C 095/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

      Defendants: Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherché, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the recognition of equivalent courses that Member States may give in accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) concern only the courses delivered in countries outside the European Union?

               2.

               Do the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Regulation authorise a Member State to determine the disciplines that may be regarded as ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology, within the meaning of the Regulation, and the levels of qualification that satisfy the requirements of the Regulation?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, according to what criteria may the disciplines be considered ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.


title: Case T-406/12 P: Appeal brought on 21 March 2013 by BG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11, BG v Ombudsman

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/44

         Appeal brought on 21 March 2013 by BG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11, BG v Ombudsman
   (Case T-406/12 P)
   2013/C 156/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: BG (Strasbourg, France) (represented by L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11;

               —

               In consequence, grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           Principally, order that, with retroactive effect to the effective date of the dismissal decision, the applicant be restored to her post of administrator at grade A5, step 2 and order payment of the amounts due to her for that entire period, together with late-payment interest at the ECB rate increased by two points;

                           —

                           In the alternative, award the sum corresponding to the remuneration which she would have received since the effective date of her dismissal in August 2010 until the month in which she reaches retirement age, in July 2040, and put into order accordingly the applicant’s pension rights;

                           —

                           In any event, award the sum of EUR 65 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

                           —

                           Order the defendant to pay all the costs;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a distortion of the file at the time of the checks made by the CST of compliance with the disciplinary procedure and in particular an infringement of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, since the CST made an incorrect interpretation of the notion of ‘criminal proceedings’ (concerns paragraph 68 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to check compliance with the duty to state reasons and a distortion of the file, since the CST concluded that the Ombudsman did not breach the duty to state reasons, whereas he departed from the opinion of the Disciplinary Board (concerns paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment under appeal).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to check any manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and a distortion of the file, since the CST concluded that the Ombudsman did not infringe the principle of proportionality by imposing the most severe penalty provided for in the Staff Regulations on the applicant (concerns paragraphs 115 to 130 of the judgment under appeal).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to check compliance with the principle of equal treatment as between men and women and a breach by the CST of the duty to state reasons, since the CST failed to examine whether the fact of the applicant’s pregnancy, a factor with which her conduct was connected, involved or constituted indirect discrimination of the applicant (concerns paragraphs 139 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).