title: Removal from the register of T-188/96

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 181 /23
          Removal from the register of T- 187/96 (')                           Removal from the register of T-139/95 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /50 )                                                       ( 97/C 181 /53 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 15 April 1997 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 87/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-139/95 : Georges Cantone v. Commission of the
Communities .                                                         European Communities .
(') OJ No C 27, 25 . 1 . 1997.                                        O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
          Removal from the register of T-l 8 8/96 (')                          Removal from the register of T-2 13/96 ( ! )
                            97/C 181 /51 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /54 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 88/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-213/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
Communities .
                                                                      European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997 .
          Removal from the register of T-196/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /52 )                                     Removal from the register of T-133/96 H
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /55 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 10 April 1997 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of              By order of 23 April 1997 the President of the First
Case T-196/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                      Case T-133/96 : Michael Boessen v. Economic and Social
 1 OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997.                                        Committee .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case T-57/01: Action brought on 12 March 2001 by Solvay SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.6.2001                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 161/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 12 March 2001 by Solvay SA against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant is a subsidiary of the Japanese company Asahi
Vet Japan Co. Ltd, which developed the feedingstuff additive                                            (Case T-57/01)
ToyoCerin, and is the only manufacturer of that additive in the
world. The applicant produces the additive for the European
market in Spain and distributes it in Europe. In that capacity,                                        (2001/C 161/45)
the applicant is the applicant in a procedure for Community
authorisation in respect of the additive ToyoCerin pursuant to
Articles 3 and following of Council Directive 70/524/EEC (1).                                    (Language of the case: French)
The applicant first applied for a Community authorisation in                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
respect of ToyoCerin for all categories of animal in 1991, and                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 12 March
a temporary authorisation for ToyoCerin in respect of the                     2001 by Solvay SA, established in Brussels, represented by
following categories of animal was granted in 1994: rearing                   Lucien Simont, Paul Alain Foriers, Guy Block Frédéric Louis
pigs, piglets and sows. That temporary authorisation was                      and Anne Vallery, Lawyers.
periodically extended until April 1999. As regards other
animals, such as fattening chickens, cattle and fattening rabbits,
ToyoCerin was authorised on a temporary basis by Regulation                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
(EC) No 1411/1999 (2). The applicant claims that that tempor-
ary authorisation was not extended and that the applicant’s
request for unlimited authorisation of ToyoCerin in respect of                —     find that the action taken against it was time-barred;
rearing pigs, piglets and sows has not been determined.
                                                                              —     in any event, annul the Commission Decision of
                                                                                13 December 2000 relating to a procedure under
The action is directed against the Commission’s decision to                         Article 82 of the Treaty (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash —
dismiss the applicant’s request for unlimited authorisation in                      Solvay);
respect of ToyoCerin for use on swine, and for an extension of
the temporary authorisation in respect of use of ToyoCerin on
other types of animal. The applicant claims that it is entitled               —     find that the power to impose fines is time-barred;
to be awarded the authorisation it is requesting pursuant to
Article 3(a) of Directive 70/524/EEC, and that the Com-                       —     in any event, annul Article 2 of the contested decision, in
mission’s decision not to propose to the Standing Committee                         so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 20 million on the
for Feedingstuffs that such authorisation be granted, and to                        applicant;
dismiss the applicant’s request, infringes that provision.
                                                                              —     declare that no fine should be imposed on the applicant
Furthermore, the applicant has legitimate expectations in the                       or, at the very least, that the fine should be substantially
present case, pursuant to which it was entitled to assume that                      reduced;
ToyoCerin would be granted fresh authorisation for categories
of animal other than swine before the temporary authorisation                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
expired. Finally, the procedure followed by the defendant
infringes the provisions relating to the time limits within
which the authorisation procedure is to be carried out and
the defendant’s contested decision infringes the principle of                 Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
proportionality and the requirement to provide reasons in
Directive 70/524/EEC.
                                                                              The applicant is a company incorporated under Belgian law,
                                                                              which operates in the soda-ash sector through marketing
                                                                              outlets in nine countries in Europe.
(1) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning
     additives in feeding stuffs (OJ L 270, p. 1), most recently amended
     by Commission Regulation (EC) No 45/1999 of 11 November
     1999 (OJ L 6, p. 3).                                                     On 19 December 1990, the Commission adopted Decision
                                                                              91/299/EEC (1) finding that the applicant held a dominant
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1411/1999 of 29 June 1999                  position on the soda-ash market in continental Europe and
     concerning the authorisation of new additives and new additive
     uses in feedingstuffs (OJ L 164, p. 56).
                                                                              had abused that position, and imposed on the applicant a fine
                                                                              of ECU 20 million. An action for the annulment of that initial
                                                                              decision was brought before the Court of First Instance. By
                                                                              judgment of 29 June 1995, the Court of First Instance
                                                                              annulled the decision (2). The Commission’s appeal against that
                                                                              judgment was dismissed by the Court (3).
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
On 13 December 2000, the Commission adopted a decision (4)              As to the substance, the applicant submits that the Commission
finding that the applicant had infringed Article 86 of the EEC          infringed Article 82 EC by the manner in which it defined the
Treaty by acting in a manner intended to exclude or to limit            geographical market without taking account of the real
competition very severely, by, inter alia, concluding agreements        conditions of competition and that the applicant did not hold
with customers requiring them to obtain supplies from the               a dominant position within the meaning of that article on the
applicant. In that decision, the Commission imposed on the              soda-ash market.
applicant a fine of EUR 20 million.
                                                                        As regards the Commission’s view that the applicant resorted
                                                                        to various practices all designed to bring about exclusion, the
                                                                        applicant contends that that view is not supported by the facts
The applicant seeks the annulment of that decision.                     and is wrong in law. Furthermore, the Commission did not
                                                                        give a proper statement of its reasons for its decision.
                                                                        In the alternative, the applicant seeks annulment of the
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the            fines imposed or reduction thereof. It contends that the
Commission did not take account of the passage of time.                 Commission’s power to impose fines on the applicant had
The five-year limitation period, which was suspended while              been extinguished by the time the contested decision was
proceedings for annulment were pending before the Court of              adopted, and therefore the Commission infringed Article 15
First Instance, ended in January 2000. Therefore, in the                of Regulation No 17. Moreover, it did not properly assess the
applicant’s view, the Commission adopted a decision at a time           gravity and duration of the infringement and failed to take
when its power to impose fines had been time-barred for many            account of extenuating circumstances. Finally, the amount of
months. The applicant also considers that the Commission                the fine is excessive and disproportionate and takes no account
infringed the applicant’s right to have a decision against it           of the passage of time.
taken within a reasonable period, in view of the fact that the
conduct imputed to the applicant occurred from 1983 to the
end of 1990.
                                                                        (1) Commission Decision 91/299/EEC of 19.12.1990 (IV/33.133-C:
                                                                            Soda-ash — Solvay), OJ 1991 L 152, p. 21.
                                                                        (2) Case T-32/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II-1825.
                                                                        (3) Judgment of 6.4.2000 in Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95
According to the applicant, a decision was adopted before a                 P Commission v Solvay [2000] ECR I-2391.
meeting of the members of the Commission. The applicant                 (4) Commission Decision of 13.12.2000 relating to a procedure
alleges infringement of the principle of collegiality and of the            under Article 82 EC (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash — Solvay.
principle of legal certainty.
Moreover, in its view, the contested decision infringed essential
procedural requirements which should have been fulfilled
before its adoption, the applicant’s rights of defence and its
right to be heard. The Commission cannot rely on the
administrative procedure which preceded the adoption of the
decision of December 1990, since that procedure was vitiated            Action brought on 12 March 2001 by Solvay SA against
in numerous ways and the applicant should have been granted                    the Commission of the European Communities
a hearing allowing it to submit its observations.
                                                                                (Case T-58/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/46)
According to the applicant, the Commission did not reopen
the administrative procedure which preceded adoption of
Decision 91/299 and did not receive a fresh statement of
objections and, therefore, was unable to respond to those                                  (Language of the case: French)
objections. By readopting, practically word for word, a decision
dating from 1990, disregarding, amongst things, the passage
of time, the contradictory positions taken by the Commission            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on matters essential to appraisal of the case and evidence in           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 12 March
defence put forward by the applicant in the intervening                 2001 by Solvay SA, established in Brussels, represented by
period, the Commission infringed the principles of sound                Lucien Simont, Paul Alain Foriers, Guy Block Frédéric Louis
administration, impartial examination and proportionality.              and Anne Vallery, Lawyers.


title: Case T-170/13: Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Benelli Q.J./OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/27

         Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Benelli Q.J./OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI)
   (Case T-170/13)
   2013/C 147/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the defendant’s decision and order the dismissal of the application for revocation filed by the cancellation applicant;

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision and remit the case to OHIM for further examination and a new decision should the Court consider that it is inevitable to conduct another thorough analysis of the evidence of genuine use;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘MOTOBI’ for goods in class 12 — Community trade mark registration No 835 264

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-43/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY)
   (Case T-43/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 046/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Heidrick & Struggles International Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister-at-Law)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2013 (Case R 338/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The action is dismissed.

               2)

               Heidrick & Struggles International Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case C-543/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Value-added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) — Land which has not been built on — Building land — Definitions — Demolition work for the purposes of future construction — Exemption from VAT)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/5

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-543/11) (1)

   (Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) - Land which has not been built on - Building land - Definitions - Demolition work for the purposes of future construction - Exemption from VAT)
   2013/C 63/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3), of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions provided for by the Directive — Supply of land which has not been built on.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 135(1)(k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) therein, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in Article 135(1)(k) does not cover the supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of land which has not been built on following the demolition of the building situated on it, even where, at the time of that supply, improvement works on the land, apart from that demolition, had not been carried out, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of the factual circumstances surrounding that transaction and prevailing at the time of supply, including the intention of the parties when it is supported by objective evidence, that, at that time, the land at issue was in fact intended to be built on, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-231/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Jonkman

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Jonkman
   (Case C-231/06)
   (2006/C 190/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Office national des pensions

      Defendant: Émilienne Jonkman
   Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))
               Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
               If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation?

               2.

               With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))
               Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
               If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).


title: Case F-126/06: Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Mangazzù v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/32

         Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Mangazzù v Commission
   (Case F-126/06)
   (2006/C 310/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Salvatore Mangazzù (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the individual decision concerning a transfer from temporary staff status to official status contained in an instrument of appointment taking effect on 1 January 2005, notified on 13 January 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, after having worked at the Commission for several years as a temporary agent in Grade A5, then A*11, was successful in open competition COM/A/18/04, published on 21 April 2004, to draw up a reserve list for administrators in career bracket A7/A6. As a result, he was appointed as an official in the same post he had occupied as a member of the temporary staff and classified in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations.
   In support of his action, the applicant invokes infringement of Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant moreover submits infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of the protection of acquired rights and the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case C-22/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia)) — Katarína Haasová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Directive 90/232/EEC — Article 1 — Road traffic accident — Death of a passenger — Right to compensation of the partner and of the child, who is a minor — Non-material damage — Compensation — Cover by compulsory insurance)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia)) — Katarína Haasová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová
   (Case C-22/12) (1)

   (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Road traffic accident - Death of a passenger - Right to compensation of the partner and of the child, who is a minor - Non-material damage - Compensation - Cover by compulsory insurance)
   2013/C 367/07
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties in the main proceedings

      Applicant: Katarína Haasová

      Defendants: Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove — Interpretation of Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1) — Scope of the guarantee in favour of third parties provided by compulsory insurance — National provision not providing for compensation for non-material damage

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and (2) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1(1) of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as meaning that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must cover compensation for non-material damage suffered by the next of kin of the deceased victims of a road traffic accident, in so far as such compensation is provided for as part of the civil liability of the insured party under the national law applicable in the dispute in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case C-168/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA (Industrial and commercial property — Directive 98/71/EC — Legal protection of designs — Article 17 — Obligation concerning the cumulation of design protection with copyright protection — National law precluding copyright protection or rendering it unenforceable for a certain period in the case of designs which entered the public domain before the entry into force of the law — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA
   (Case C-168/09) (1)

   (Industrial and commercial property - Directive 98/71/EC - Legal protection of designs - Article 17 - Obligation concerning the cumulation of design protection with copyright protection - National law precluding copyright protection or rendering it unenforceable for a certain period in the case of designs which entered the public domain before the entry into force of the law - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2011/C 80/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flos SpA

      Defendant: Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA

      Intervener: Assoluce — Associazione nazionale delle Imprese degli Apparecchi di Illuminazione

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs — National legislation implementing the directive by introducing copyright protection for designs — Entitlement of a Member State to extend the conditions for the granting of such protection

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes from copyright protection in that Member State designs which were protected by a design right registered in or in respect of a Member State and which entered the public domain before the date of entry into force of that legislation, although they meet all the requirements to be eligible for copyright protection.

               2.

               Article 17 of Directive 98/71 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which — either for a substantial period of 10 years or completely — excludes from copyright protection designs which, although they meet all the requirements to be eligible for copyright protection, entered the public domain before the date of entry into force of that legislation, that being the case with regard to any third party who has manufactured or marketed products based on such designs in that State — irrespective of the date on which those acts were performed.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case F-67/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Unlawfulness — Letter concerning compliance with a judgment sent to the applicant’s representative in the appeal against that judgment — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-67/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Unlawfulness - Letter concerning compliance with a judgment sent to the applicant’s representative in the appeal against that judgment - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure)
   2013/C 147/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered due to the defendant having sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer not yet representing the applicant in that case.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 16.


title: Case T-482/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Cittá)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/68

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Cittá)
   (Case T-482/09)
   2010/C 24/121
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1047/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER Città’ (Application No 4 939 302) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) for services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-37/11: Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/16

         Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-37/11)
   2011/C 173/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the open competition EPSO AD/177/10.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 13 July 2010 to exclude the applicant from the open competition EPSO AD/177/10;

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 5 January 2011 dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               in the alternative, rule that the applicant should not be ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.


title: Case T-358/13: Action brought on 9 July 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/40

         Action brought on 9 July 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-358/13)
   2013/C 252/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Savatorelli, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/209/EU of 26 April 2013 on ‘the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2012 financial year’, notified under the reference C(2013) 2444 on 29 April 2013 by Letter SG-Greffe (2013) D/5879, which was received by Italy’s Permanent Representation to the European Union on 29 April 2013, in so far as that decision finds the amount of EUR 5 006 487,10, relating to the Basilicata Region, to be a ‘non-reusable amount’ and thus subtracts that amount from the Basilicata Rural Development Plan’s EAFRD spending limit, with the result that it is impossible for that amount to be used within that limit, essentially leading to the decommitment of the amount in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Italian Government contests Commission Implementing Decision 2013/209/EU of 26 April 2013 on ‘the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2012 financial year’, notified under document C(2013) 2444 on 29 April 2013, in so far as that decision finds that the amount of EUR 5 006 487,10, relating to the Basilicata Region, is a ‘non-reusable amount’ and accordingly subtracts that amount from the Basilicata Rural Development Plan (RDP)’s EAFRD spending limit, with the result that it is impossible for that amount to be used within that limit, essentially leading to the decommitment of the amount in question.
   In that regard, the applicant claims that the adjustment arises from the Commission staff’s assumption that some projects which were paid for in the final quarter of 2011 could not be included in the quarterly declaration of expenditure as they did not comply with the RDP then in force.
   The Commission’s position as finally implemented in the contested implementing decision is, according to the applicant, flawed in several respects.

               —

               First, there are legitimate doubts as to whether it was correct to bring the reduction — made pursuant to Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1) and categorised as a “non-reusable amount” — within the scope of the decision on the clearance of the accounts, as any amount which has been reduced or suspended must be disregarded by that decision, as established by Article 29(5) of that regulation. One of the ways in which the reduction in question is incorrect is in terms of its quantification;

               —

               Secondly, the decision is also vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons, given that an amount corresponding to a quarter’s expenditure has been reduced or suspended by the Commission for the purposes of Article 29(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005;

               —

               Lastly, the finding that the amount is not reusable is equivalent to decommitting that amount, with the result that the sums involved cannot be used in the future within the Basilicata RDP’s spending limit, even though the EU legislation currently in force does not allow amounts which have been suspended to be decommitted.


title: Case F-77/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Balabanis and Le Dour (Officials — Promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Amendment to the Staff Regulations — Temporal application — 2004 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of officials eligible for promotion — Taking into account the probationary period when calculating the minimum length of service of two years )

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Balabanis and Le Dour
   (Case F-77/05) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Amendment to the Staff Regulations - Temporal application - 2004 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion in the list of officials eligible for promotion - Taking into account the probationary period when calculating the minimum length of service of two years )
   (2006/C 331/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Panagiotis Balabanis (Brussels, Belgium), Olivier Le Dour (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Martin M., S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision not to include the applicants' names in the list of officials eligible for promotion in the 2004 procedure and of the decisions not to promote them in that procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 14 September 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities refused to consider Messrs Balabanis and Le Dour eligible for promotion in the 2004 promotion procedure.

               2.

               Annuls the decision of 30 November 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities did not promote Messrs Balabanis and Le Dour in the 2004 promotion procedure.

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271 of 29.10.2005, p. 20 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-305/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-695/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Omega International v OHIM (Representation of a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/53

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Omega International v OHIM (Representation of a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle)
   (Case T-695/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/67)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Omega International (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: J. P. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2014 (Case R 1037/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Omega International GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-49/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — González Sánchez v OHIM — Bankinter (ENCUENTA)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/18

         Action brought on 17 February 2006 — González Sánchez v OHIM — Bankinter (ENCUENTA)
   (Case T-49/06)
   (2006/C 310/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Francisco Javier González Sánchez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Justicia González, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BANKINTER S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005, notified on 21 December 2005, in Case R 1116/2005-2, granting the applicant time within which to bring an appeal against the opposition to the mark applied for, which had been refused by OHIM on the ground that its appeal was out of time.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Confederaciόn Española de Cajas de Ahorro.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ENCUENTA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 38 — Application No 2 534 584.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BANKINTER S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘ecuenta — ebankinter’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 38 — Trade mark No 2 396 760.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition refusing the application for registration upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 61 to 69 on notifications in Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 (1).

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


               11.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/9

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 December 2011 in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State
   (Case E-19/11)
   2012/C 136/06
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 December 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 26 December 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

               1.

               Does it contravene Article 11 or the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area if a Contracting Party provides in legislation, or through administrative acts, that a body exercising a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol may refuse to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine?

               2.

               If the EFTA Court considers that an arrangement such as that described in the first question constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports, or a measure having equivalent effects, in the sense of Article 11 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, then an answer is requested to the question of whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be regarded as justified with reference to Article 13 of the Agreement.

               3.

               If an arrangement such as that described in the first question is regarded as being in contravention of Article 11 or the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, then an answer is requested to the question of whether the EFTA Court considers (to the extent to which it assesses such questions), that the conditions, which the Plaintiff must fulfil in order to acquire a right to compensation from the EFTA State due to a violation of the Agreement, are met.


title: Case T-841/14: Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/43

      Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-841/14)
      (2015/C 073/55)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the demand made by the Commission’s services in their letter of 21 October 2014 for payment of interest;

                  —

                  in the alternative, determine that the increase provided for in the second and third sentences of Article 11 should not be applied;

                  —

                  whether or not the above is accepted, in the further alternative to the first head of claim, hold 20 January 2004 to be the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, that is to say, the next working day of the second month following the possible establishment of the debt, 27 November 2003, corresponding to all of the transits covered by the present proceedings, or, failing which, at least in respect of the interest on the customs debt corresponding to the last three transits; and

                  —

                  order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is brought against the decision contained in the Commission’s letter Ares (2014) 3486706 (BUDG/B/02/MTC/IB) of 21 October 2014, by which it applied Article 11 of 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.
      The origins of the present action are to be found in an investigation by the Netherlands authorities relating to 26 transits dispatched from its customs between April and November 1994 and for which the declared exit from the Community customs territory was through the Spanish customs at Algeciras. Those authorities considered that the goods concerned had eluded customs control by not having exited the territory of the European Union. Subsequently, the Netherlands authorities drew up a new report in relation to 8 transit declarations, casting doubt on the authenticity of the stamps and signatures of the documents that had been furnished as evidence of their completion.
      In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, in conjunction with Article 9(1), the second paragraph of Article 10(1), Article 6(3) and Article 2, for having been applied by the Commission to a factual situation not envisaged therein.

                              —

                              It is claimed, in this connection, that the case does not concern a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(a) but rather a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(b).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty in the application of the second and third sentences of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.

                              —

                              It is claimed, in this connection, that those sentences contemplate an increase of the interest for late payment the purpose of which is not to compensate the damage caused by late payment, and that they possess a coercive force which precludes their being applied in the absence of knowledge on the part of the Member State of the very existence of the obligation complied with belatedly.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1150/2000 as regards the setting of the date on which the customs debt fell to be established and therefore the inappropriate setting of the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, since the matters were the subject of judicial proceedings, which means that, in any event, it would have been possible to establish it only following the legal ruling.


20150731028616872015/C 270/282142013TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150702232421Case T-214/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — Typke v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 — Implied refusal to grant access — Refusal to grant access — Request for modification of the form of order sought submitted in the reply — Time-limit — Withdrawal of the implied decision — No need to adjudicate — Concept of a document — Extraction and organisation of information contained in electronic databases)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2310120150702EN0028231242Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — Typke v Commission
   (Case T-214/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 — Implied refusal to grant access — Refusal to grant access — Request for modification of the form of order sought submitted in the reply — Time-limit — Withdrawal of the implied decision — No need to adjudicate — Concept of a document — Extraction and organisation of information contained in electronic databases)’2015/C 270/28Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission of 5 February 2013 refusing the applicant’s initial application for access to documents relating to the preselection tests for the open competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 (AD 5-AD 7) (Gestdem 2012/3258) and, secondly, of the implied decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission, deemed to have been taken on 13 March 2013, refusing the applicant’s second application for access to documents relating to those tests (Gestdem 2013/0068).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the implied decision refusing access in procedure Gestdem 2013/0068;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-173/13: Action brought on 20 March 2013 — Selo Medical v OHIM — biosyn Arzneimittel (SELOGYN)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/25

         Action brought on 20 March 2013 — Selo Medical v OHIM — biosyn Arzneimittel (SELOGYN)
   (Case T-173/13)
   2013/C 141/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Selo Medical GmbH (Unternberg, Austria) (represented by: T. Schneider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: biosyn Arzneimittel GmbH (Fellbach, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2013 in Case R 2601/2011-4 and reject the opposition against the Community trade mark application;

               —

               Order OHIM or the potential intervener to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SELOGYN’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9 049 016

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: biosyn Arzneimittel GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘SELESYN’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


14.9.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 219/11
       —     in Artois-Picardie: the coastal waters and, for main-        Removal from the register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00,
             land waters, the hydrographic system between the               C-420/00, C-123/01, C-237/01, C-238/01 and C-15/02 ( 1)
             canalised Aa and the Escaut on the one hand and
             the Belgian border on the other hand, the Scarpe
             downstream from Arras, the Lens Canal downstream                                      (2002/C 219/20)
             from Lens and the whole of the Somme;
       —     in Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse: the River Vistre and
             Thau lake.                                                   By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
—      Lack of more stringent treatment for urban waste water             register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00, C-420/00, C-123/01,
       discharges with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more             C-237/01, C-238/01 et C-15/02 (Referral for a preliminary
       than 10 000: The French authorities had admitted that              ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans
       for 130 agglomerations the equipment for treating urban            Oppitz and Others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt
       waste water was not, by the deadline of 31 December                Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg.
       1998, in compliance with the requirements of the
       Directive. While those authorities, in their response to
       the reasoned opinion, specify that the discharges of some          (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001, OJ C 28 of
                                                                               27.1.2001, OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ
       of those 130 agglomerations are in fact now subject to
                                                                               C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
       such treatment, only the agglomerations of Vichy, Aix en
       Provence and Mâcon can actually be removed from the
       list of the abovementioned 130 agglomerations. For
       others, the reply states that the necessary equipment will
       only come into service at a future date. That is the case
       for Boulogne-sur-mer (2005), Clermont-Ferrand (2004),
       Saint-Etienne (2005), Mulhouse (2003), Nancy (autumn
       2002), Dijon (2005), Montpellier (2004), Tarare (2003),
       Villefranche sur Saône (2004), Vitrolles (2005) and                        Removal from the register of Case C-128/01 ( 1)
       Auxerre (2004).
       The inadequate identification of sensitive areas has inevi-                                 (2002/C 219/21)
       tably resulted in the obligation in Article 5(2) of the
       Directive not being taken into account in the areas
       concerned.
                                                                          By order of 27 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
( 1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.5.1991 concerning urban           register of Case C-128/01: Commission of the European
     waste water treatment (OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991), p. 40.                Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
Removal from the register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00
                          and C-319/00 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 219/19)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-143/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/22)
By order of 31 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00 and C-319/00 (Referral
for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat
                                                                          By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Salzburg): Neubau Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Grundver-
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslan-
                                                                          register of Case C-143/01: Commission of the European
deskommission des Landes Salzburg.
                                                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000, OJ C 302 of
     21.10.2000.                                                          (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case C-431/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală v SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA (Taxation — Value added tax — Refund of excess VAT by set-off — Annulment of set-off decision — Obligation to pay default interest to the taxable person)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/19

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală v SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA
   (Case C-431/12) (1)

   (Taxation - Value added tax - Refund of excess VAT by set-off - Annulment of set-off decision - Obligation to pay default interest to the taxable person)
   2013/C 367/32
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală

      Defendant: SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Refund of excess VAT by set-off — Obligation on the tax authorities to pay default interest where the set-off decisions are annulled by a court

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which a taxable person, having made a claim for refund of excess input value added tax over the value added tax which it is liable to pay, cannot obtain from the tax authorities of a Member State default interest on a refund made late by those authorities in respect of a period during which administrative measures precluding the refund, which were subsequently annulled by a court ruling, were in force.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Case C-463/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, by order of that court of 29 September 2004, in the case of Federconsumatori and Others against Comune di Milano (Municipality of Milan) and Aem Spa

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, by order of that court of 29 September 2004, in the case of Federconsumatori and Others against Comune di Milano (Municipality of Milan) and Aem Spa
   (Case C-463/04)
   (2005/C 19/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, Sezione I (Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Milan, Division I) (Italy) of 29 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Federconsumatori and Others against Comune di Milano (Municipality of Milan) and Aem Spa, on the following questions:

               —

               Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, as applied in the circumstances at issue in this case, be held to be compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty as interpreted in the judgments in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, when it is invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost control by operation of law over the company limited by shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4 %) as a shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?

               —

               Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994 converted into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, be held to be compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty as interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, when it is invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost control by operation of law over the company limited by shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4 %) as a shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, and thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?

               —

               Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code be held to be compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, inasmuch as, when applied in specific cases, it brings about a result that is contrary to another provision of national law (in particular Article 2(1)(d) of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994) which itself complies with Article 56 of the EC Treaty and consequently reflects, in respect of the conditions on which special powers are exercised and the requirements to which they are subject, the principles established in that connection by the judgments of the Court of Justice cited above?


title: Case C-156/08: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 33(1) — Meaning of turnover taxes — Real property transfer tax)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/15

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I
   (Case C-156/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Meaning of ‘turnover taxes’ - Real property transfer tax)
   (2009/C 69/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)
   Parties

      Applicant: Monika Vollkommer

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Land I
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Account taken, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of real property transfer tax (‘Grunderwerbsteuer’), of future building work subject to turnover tax if the purchase includes both the supply of the building plot and the building work
   Operative part of the order
   Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, on the transfer of a plot of land not yet built on, from including future building work in the taxable amount used for the assessment of taxes on transfers and transactions — such as the ‘Grunderwerbsteuer’ provided for under German law — and thereby making a transaction that is subject to value added tax under that directive subject also to those other taxes, provided that the latter cannot be characterised as turnover taxes.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2002 in Case T-365/00: Alsace International Car Service SARL (AICS) v European Parliament (Public contracts for the provision of services — Transport of persons using vehicles with drivers during sessions of the Parliament in Strasbourg — Conformity with French law)

text:
C 202/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 June 2002
                          of 11 June 2002
                                                                            of 27 June 2002 in Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/
                                                                            01 and T-69/01: Carmine Salvatore Tralli v European
in Case T-365/00: Alsace International Car Service SARL                                               Central Bank (1)
                (AICS) v European Parliament (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Exten-
                                                                            sion of trial period — Dismissal during trial period —
(Public contracts for the provision of services — Transport                 Admissibility — Manifest error of assessment — Statement
of persons using vehicles with drivers during sessions of the                                       of reasons — Costs)
  Parliament in Strasbourg — Conformity with French law)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/36)
                          (2002/C 202/35)                                                      (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/01 et T-69/01:
                                                                            Carmine Salvatore Tralli, former employee of the European
                                                                            Central Bank, residing in Nidderau (Germany), represented by
                                                                            N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg, against European Central
                                                                            Bank (Agents: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, M. Benisch,
In Case T-365/00, Alsace International Car Service SARL                     V. Saintot and B. Wägenbaur) — applications for annulment
(AICS), established in Strasbourg (France), represented by                  of the decision of 18 September 2000 extending the trial
J.C. Fourgoux and J.L. Fourgoux, lawyers, with an address                   period in respect of the applicant’s employment contract, the
for service in Luxembourg, v European Parliament (Agents:                   decision of 29 November 2000 dismissing the applicant, the
O. Caisou-Rousseau and D. Peterheim): Application for annul-                decisions rejecting complaints relating to the abovementioned
ment of the European Parliament’s decision of 4 October                     decisions to extend the trial period and to dismiss the applicant
2000 rejecting the applicant’s request of 5 September 2000                  and an application for a finding that the President of the
concerning the validity of the contract entered into between                European Central Bank failed to act when he unlawfully
the Parliament and Coopérative Taxi 13 and, secondly, for                   refrained from replying to the complaint lodged by the
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a               applicant against the decision to extend the trial period — the
result of that decision, the Court of First Instance (Fifth                 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jae-
Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-                   ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; D. Christensen,
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,             Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 June
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 2002, in                 2002, in which it:
which it:
                                                                            1.    Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/01 for
                                                                                the purposes of the judgment.
1.    Annuls the Parliament’s decision of 4 October 2000 rejecting
      the applicant’s request of 5 September 2000;                          2.    Dismisses Case T-373/00.
                                                                            3.    Finds that there is no need to adjudicate in Cases T-27/01,
2.    Rejects the claim for compensation;                                         T-56/01 and T-69/01.
                                                                            4.    Orders each party in Case T-373/00 to bear its own costs.
3.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs including those reserved
      by the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2001.
                                                                            5.    Orders the applicant in Cases T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/
                                                                                01 to bear his own costs and pay a third of those incurred by
                                                                                the defendant.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, C 134 of 5.5.2001, C 150 of 19.5.2001
                                                                                and C 173 of 16.6.2001.


title: Case T-508/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Financiere Tesalia and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/39

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Financiere Tesalia and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-508/17)
   (2017/C 347/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Financiere Tesalia, SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Cartera Zurbano, SA (Madrid, Spain), Finexperta, SA (Madrid), Eurosigma, SA (Madrid) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

               —

               Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-78/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — IXI Mobile v OHIM — Klein (IXI)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — IXI Mobile v OHIM — Klein (IXI)
   (Case T-78/07) (1)

   (2008/C 92/93)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-277/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 6 June 2011 — MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 6 June 2011 — MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-277/11)
   2011/C 226/34
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MM

      Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

      Question referred

               1.

               In a case where an applicant seeks subsidiary protection status following a refusal to grant refugee status and it is proposed that such an application should be refused, does the requirement to cooperate with an applicant imposed on a Member State in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) require the administrative authorities of the Member State in question to supply such applicant with the results of such an assessment before a decision is finally made so as to enable him or her to address those aspects of the proposed decision which suggest a negative result?

      (1)  OJ L 304, p. 12


title: Case C-375/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen (Beef and veal — Premium for maintaining suckler cows)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-375/05) (1)

   (Beef and veal - Premium for maintaining suckler cows)
   (2007/C 297/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erhard Geuting

      Defendant: Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 49) and Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of premium schemes in the beef and veal sector (OJ 1996 L 313, p. 9) — Premium for maintaining suckler cows — Meaning of ‘suckler cow’ and ‘use of rights’ — Repayment of advances received and reduction of individual ceiling following the refusal to take into account, for the grant of the premium, in-calf heifers, which did not replace suckler cows in respect of which a premium had been applied for.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer may be regarded as a suckler cow within the meaning of Section 1 of that regulation only if it replaces, after the premium application for the marketing year has been lodged, a suckler cow included in that application;

               2.

               An in-calf heifer which, for a marketing year, replaced a suckler cow in respect of which a premium application was made and which was accepted as being eligible for that premium may be regarded as a suckler cow within the meaning of point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96, where it fulfils, in the following year, the requirements for replacing a suckler cow again;

               3.

               Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2222/96, is to be interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer in respect of which a premium application has been made is not eligible for the premium if it calves before the deadline for lodging that application;

               4.

               Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, is to be interpreted as meaning that a producer must be considered as not having made use of his premium rights during a marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because the animals concerned were not eligible, and this is also the case if there is no indication of an improper application having been made. Such an interpretation is not contrary to the principle of proportionality;

               5.

               It is for the national court to decide whether, in the light of all the duly justified circumstances of the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, that situation constitutes an exceptional case in which the derogation provided for in the final indent of Article 33(2) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regulation No 2311/96, falls to be applied, whilst taking account of the need to apply that provision restrictively;

               6.

               Article 33(4) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regulation No 2311/96, read in conjunction with Article 4f(4) of Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96, is to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may, on expiry of the two-year exclusion period, grant to a producer, on a preferential basis, the premium rights which were withdrawn from him because he had made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 % of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case T-339/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair)
   (Case T-339/12) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2014/C 78/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes and M. Paes, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 970/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case C-537/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 21 October 2011 — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 21 October 2011 — Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra v Capitaneria di Porto di Genova
   (Case C-537/11)
   2011/C 370/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mattia Manzi, Compagnia Naviera Orchestra

      Defendant: Capitaneria di Porto di Genova

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4a of Directive 1999/32/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC, (2) which was adopted in the light of the entry into force of Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, to be interpreted, in accordance with the international principle of good faith and the principle of cooperation in good faith as between the Community and its Member States, as meaning that the limit, fixed by that provision, of 1.5 % m/m of sulphur in marine fuels does not apply to ships flying the flag of a non-European Union State which is party to the MARPOL Convention 73/78, where such ships are in the port of a Member State which is itself a party to Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention 73/78?

               2.

               If Article 4a of Directive 1999/32/EC, as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC, is not to be interpreted as having the meaning proposed in Question 1, is that provision — in so far as it limits to 1.5 % m/m the sulphur content of fuel for use by passenger ships operating regular services to or from a Community port, including ships flying the flag of a non-European Union State which is party to Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, pursuant to which, outside SEC areas, the 4,5 % m/m sulphur content limit applies — invalid on the basis that it is contrary to the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda and to the principle of cooperation in good faith as between the Community and its Member States, in that it requires Member States which have agreed to and ratified Annex VI to act in breach of the obligations entered into towards the other States which are party to Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention 73/78?

               3.

               Is the term ‘regular services’ in Article 2(3g) of Directive 1999/32/EC, as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that cruise ships also count as ships operating ‘regular services’?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 121, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 191, p. 59.


title: Case T-276/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/63

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau and Others v Commission
   (Case T-276/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/77)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Flachglas Torgau GmbH (Torgau, Germany); Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany); and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Flachglas Torgau GmbH, Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-441/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Almer Beheer BV, Daedalus Holding BV v Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV, Oosterhout II BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 2003/71/EC — Article 3(1) — Obligation to publish a prospectus when securities are offered for sale to the public — Enforced sale of securities)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Almer Beheer BV, Daedalus Holding BV v Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV, Oosterhout II BVBA
   (Case C-441/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2003/71/EC - Article 3(1) - Obligation to publish a prospectus when securities are offered for sale to the public - Enforced sale of securities))
   2014/C 421/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Almer Beheer BV, Daedalus Holding BV

      Defendants: Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV, Oosterhout II BVBA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to publish a prospectus prior to any offer of securities to the public is not applicable to an enforced sale of securities, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.