title: Case C-583/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2011 by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/3

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2011 by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission
   (Case C-583/11 P)
   2012/C 58/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Jaypootie Moesesie, Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak, David Kuptana, Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs, Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC), Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (represented by: H. Viaene, avocat, J. Bouckaert, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the order under appeal of the General Court and declare the application for annulment admissible, should the Court of Justice consider that all elements required to decide on the admissibility of the action for annulment of the contested Regulation (1) are present;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the Appellants’ costs;

               —

               Order the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appeal is based on three main grounds of appeal: 1) the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 263, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), 2) the General Court violated the duty to state reasons and, in subsidiary order, violated Articles 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), as principles of the Union's law, and 3) that the General Court wrongly presented and distorted the evidence adduced by the Applicants at first instance.

               2.

               In the First Ground of Appeal, the Appellants allege that the interpretation given by the General Court to the term ‘regulatory act’, i.e., as separate and exclusive of a ‘legislative act’, is erroneous as it negates any raison d'être of the new possibility for the institution of proceedings based on Article 263, fourth paragraph (first part of the first ground of appeal). In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the Appellants also demonstrate that the General Court erred in law by concluding that only four of the eighteen Appellants are directly concerned by the contested Regulation. The General Court applied a too restrictive interpretation to the concept of direct concern. The General Court also erred in law by applying too restrictive an interpretation of the requirement of individual concern.

               3.

               In the Second Ground of Appeal, the Appellants recall that in their observations on the pleas of inadmissibility, they had submitted that only a broad interpretation of Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU would be in conformity with Article 47 of the Charter Articles 6 and 13 ECHR. Given that this plea of law was decisive for the outcome of the case, the General Court was under a legal duty to provide for a specific and express reply. The Appellants demonstrate, however, that the General Court did not adequately address this plea of law. The omission of the General Court to do so constitutes an error in law which shall result in the annulment of the order under appeal (first part of the second ground of appeal). In the second part of the second ground of appeal, and in subsidiary order, the Appellants respectfully invite the Court of Justice to annul the order under appeal on the ground that the interpretation of Article 263, fourth paragraph, and the consequent decision of the General Court to declare the Appellant's action inadmissible, violates Article 47 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, as general principles of the Union's law.

               4.

               In the Third Ground of Appeal, the Appellants claim that the General Court wrongly presented and distorted the evidence they had adduced. Indeed, the General Court rejects the Appellants’ argument concerning the interpretation to be given to the term ‘regulatory act’ on the basis of two claims that the Appellants allegedly made, but in reality did not. The findings of fact of the order under appeal are therefore incorrect and distort the clear sense of the evidence available to the General Court, without it being necessary to undertake a fresh assessment of the facts. Since the General Court interpreted the arguments adduced in a way that is at odds with their wording, the finding of the General Court in the order under appeal is vitiated by some manifest errors of assessment.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products
   OJ L 286, p. 36


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Removal from the register of Case C-14/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/97)
   By order of 5 December 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-14/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Case T-222/12: Action brought on 24 May 2012 — National Trust for Scotland v OHIM — Comhairle na Eilean Siar (ST KILDA)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/24

         Action brought on 24 May 2012 — National Trust for Scotland v OHIM — Comhairle na Eilean Siar (ST KILDA)
   (Case T-222/12)
   2012/C 227/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: National Trust for Scotland (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. MacKenzie, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comhairle na Eilean Siar (Isle of Lewis, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               that the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) dated 26 March 2012, in case R 310/2011-4, should be annulled in its entirety and that the application be refused;

               —

               that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal procedure before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ST KILDA for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 283 871

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Grounds laid down in Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, more particularly a non-registered trade mark protected in the UK, as well as third party observations under Article 40 of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-16/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 89/654/EEC — Protection of workers — Safety and health of workers in the workplace — Emergency doors, windows and skylights — Failure to transpose)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-16/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 89/654/EEC - Protection of workers - Safety and health of workers in the workplace - Emergency doors, windows and skylights - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 19/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-16/04, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 January 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Kreppel and D. Martin) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski and M. Lumma) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004 in which it:

               (1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               (2)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 13 January 1998 in Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger v. European Parliament (Officials - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Decision to assign to non-active status - Article 41 of the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard to officials' interests)

text:
C 94/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European Parliament
                      of 29 January 1998                             (Agents: Manfred Peters and Evelyn Waldherr) Ð
in Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato v. Commission             application for annulment, first, of the decision of the
               of the European Communities (1)                       Parliament of 1 December 1995 assigning the applicant to
(Officials Ð General competitions Ð Non-registration on              non-active status with effect from of 30 November 1995
the list of successful candidates Ð Letter correcting a              and all subsequent decisions relating thereto and, secondly,
letter initially sent to the candidate Ð Legal relationship          the decision of the Parliament of 3 September 1996 to
between the institution and a candidate in a competition             change the date when the decision of 1 December 1995
Ð Obligation to provide a statement of reasons Ð                     was to take effect to 31 January 1996, the Court of First
Damages for material and non-material damage Ð                       Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
                         Permissibility)                             President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                     H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 1998,
                          (98/C 94/56)                               the operative part of which is as follows:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     1. The application is dismissed.
In Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato, residing at
Foggia (Italy), represented initially by Nicola De Perna, of
the Foggia Bar, and subsequently by Alberto Tedeschi, of             2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
the Bari Bar, and Cino Fiori, of the Foggia Bar, with an
address for service at 13 Via Saseo, Foggia, against the             (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for, first, a finding that
the letter whereby the chairman of the selection board for
competition COM/B/794 informed the applicant that he
was registered on the list of successful candidates in the
aforementioned competition is valid and, in the
alternative, for the annulment of the illegal stages of that           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
competition and, secondly, a claim for damages to                                         of 17 February 1998
compensate him for material and non-material damage
suffered Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             in Case T-183/96: E v. Economic and Social Committee of
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                               the European Communities (1)
Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,            (Officials Ð Freedom of expression in relation to
gave a judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:                     hierarchical superiors Ð Duty of loyalty and obligation to
                                                                     uphold the dignity of the service Ð Disciplinary measure
1. dismissed the claims in the application;
                                                                         Ð Relegation in step Ð Principle of proportionality)
2. ordered the Commission to pay to the applicant BEF                                         (98/C 94/58)
     30 000 by way of compensation for non-material
     damage;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3. ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-183/96: E, a former official of the Economic
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
                                                                     and Social Committee of the European Communities,
                                                                     residing in Brussels, represented initially by Guy San
                                                                     BartolomeÂ Sarrey, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by
                                                                     Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer, of the Brussels Bar, and Pierre
                                                                     Demolin, of the Mons Bar, with an address for service in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Kaufhold, 7
                                                                     Côte d'Eich, v. Economic and Social Committee of the
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Moises Bermejo Garde
                      of 13 January 1998                             and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of
       in Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger v. European                 the decision of the Secretary-General of the Economic and
                         Parliament (1)                              Social Committee imposing on the applicant the
                                                                     disciplinary measure of relegation in step Ð the Court of
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð                  First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
Decision to assign to non-active status Ð Article 41 of the          President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
Staff Regulations Ð Duty to have regard to officials'                Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                            interests)                               a judgment on 17 February 1998, in which it:
                          (98/C 94/57)
                (Language of the case: French)                       1. annuls the decision of the Economic and Social
                                                                         Committee of 18 January 1996 imposing on the
In Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger, resident at Heffingen                 applicant the disciplinary measure of relegation in
(Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                   step;


title: Case C-211/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the administrative proceedings between HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH and Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Intervener: The representative of the public interest at the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
C 200/8               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           23.8.2003
     The Commission's analysis ignored its obligation, before                    condition in which it is imported the determining
     claiming overpayment or overfinancing had occurred, to                      factor?
     take into account the actual costs of the eligible projects
     and the actual matching co-funding and the correct
     exchange calculations from the Irish authorities before                3.   If the Court of Justice concludes that the product in
     determining whether Ireland breached the 75 % ESF                           question is medicinal, but that in those Member
     funding limit.                                                              States where it has hitherto been regarded as a
                                                                                foodstuff it should continue to be a foodstuff, that
2.   It is submitted that the failure of the Commission to                       raises problems for the referring Chamber such as
     accept the Applicant's explanations in this case amounts                    those underlying the questions in B VI, in conjunc-
     to a breach of a fundamental rule of law relating to the                    tion with those in B III. Reference is made to those
     operation of the structural funds and the principles iden-                  questions and the observations thereon and an
     tified by the Commission in the context of the Decision.                    answer is requested.
3.   It is submitted that the approach adopted by the Commis-
     sion is out of all proportion to the result intended to be             4.   If ‘Lactobact omni FOS’ is a foodstuff (food supple-
     achieved having regard to the ongoing efficacy of the                       ment), is it then a novel food within the meaning of
     projects in issue and the nature of the project beneficiary.                Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parlia-
     Such an approach effectively amounts to the imposition                      ment and of the Council of 27 January 1997
     of a penalty in circumstances where the beneficiary is                      concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients
     innocent of any wrongdoing.                                                 (OJ 1997 L43, p. 1, ‘the Novel Foods Regulation’)?
                                                                                What is the relationship between the various legal
4.   Finally, it is submitted that the Commission's approach                     bases?
     fails to respect the principles of legal certainty and
     legitimate expectations.
                                                                        B   In the event that — as has been the case hitherto — the
                                                                            questions (as to classification) posed in section A above
                                                                            are to be answered not by the Court of Justice but by the
                                                                            national courts, guidance is none the less sought on how
                                                                            correctly to resolve the questions in A 2 from a Commu-
                                                                            nity law standpoint, in so far as Community law is
                                                                            applicable.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the administrative                           In addition the following questions arise:
proceedings between HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH and
Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Intervener: The representa-
tive of the public interest at the Oberverwaltungsgericht                   I    a)    Is the contested product to be classified
               für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                                        according to Article 2, subparagraphs (1) and
                                                                                (2),   in    conjunction       with     Article   2,
                         (Case C-211/03)                                               subparagraph (3)(d), of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and
                         (2003/C 200/14)                                               of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down
                                                                                the general principles and requirements of food
                                                                                law, establishing the European Food Safety
                                                                                Authority and laying down procedures in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                 matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L31, p. 1, ‘the
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-                                Basic Regulation’), or — once the period for
richt für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrative                          transposition expires on 31 July 2003 —
Court for the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) of 7 May 2003,                              according to Directive 2002/46/EC of the
received at the Court Registry on 15 May 2003, for a preli-                            European Parliament and of the Council of
minary ruling in the administrative proceedings between HLH                            10 June 2002 on the approximation of the
Warenvertriebs GmbH and Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Inter-                             laws of the Member States relating to food
vener: The representative of the public interest at the Oberver-                       supplements (OJ 2002 L 183, p. 51, ‘the Food
waltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher                               Supplements Directive’), and if so according to
Administrative Court for the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) on                           which parts of the directive?
the following questions:
A.   1.    Is the contested product                                              b)    If Article 2, subparagraphs (1) and (2), in
                                                                                conjunction with Article 2, subparagraph (3)(d),
           ‘Lactobact omni FOS’                                                        of the Basic Regulation applies, the following
                                                                                question arises: is it the case that it is no longer
           a foodstuff (perhaps in the form of a food supple-                          the product's main (objective) purpose that is
           ment) or a medicinal product? Is this finding binding                       the decisive factor, but rather that a product
           on all the Member States?                                                   which meets the criteria for both a food and a
                                                                                medicine is, legally speaking, always — and
     2.    Is it relevant when classifying the product that,                           only — a medicinal product? How material for
           according to the directions for use, it is intended to                      these purposes is the type of product and how
           be dissolved in water or in yoghurt? Or is the                              material the individual product?
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/9
     II  How is the term ‘pharmacological effect’, which is                      medicinal, whereas it can be marketed as a foodstuff
         critical for the purposes of classification, inter alia,                in the Member State where it was manufactured? Is
         under Article 2, subparagraphs (1) and (2), in                          it compatible with Community law, and in particular
         conjunction with Article 2, subparagraph (3)(d) of                      Articles 28 and 30 EC, not to apply the rule in
         the Basic Regulation, to be defined for the purposes                    Paragraph 47a of the LMBG to such medicinal
         of Community law?                                                       products analogously? If not, can the German State
                                                                                evade an obligation to act intended by a German
                                                                                court to adopt a decision of general application
         In particular, does the definition include a require-                   under Paragraph 47a of the LMBG (applied analo-
         ment that there be a health risk?                                       gously) without there being any infringement of
                                                                                Community law if it, or the authority responsible
     III Does the view expressed by the Court of Justice in                      for food but not medicines, objects that no decision
         Case C-227/82 van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883,                             of general application under Paragraph 47a of the
         paragraph 39 on the general classification of vitamin                   LMBG (analogously) may be adopted because in the
         preparations, in which it said that it must be possible                 German classification system a product is medicinal,
         to import a product that may be marketed as a food
         in the Member State in which it was manufactured
         by the granting of a marketing authorisation if, even
                                                                                a)    on the ground that the body competent to
         though it is regarded as a medicine in the Member
                                                                                adopt decisions of general application under
         State of import, a marketing authorisation is compa-
                                                                                Paragraph 47a of the LMBG is not competent
         tible with the requirements of health protection, also
                                                                                for medicines also,
         apply to probiotic products of the kind at issue here,
         and does the Court of Justice adhere to its view in
         the light of subsequent Community law?
                                                                                b)    because the product is not authorised as a
     IV  a)    In so far as the term ‘health risk’ is relevant to                      medicine?
               the questions in sections II or III, or to other
               applicable Community law, such as Articles 28
               and 30 EC: Is the relevant threshold the ‘upper              VII If as a result of the Court's replies it transpires that
               safe level’ or should it be reduced, say, because                 the product in question is a foodstuff (including,
               the substances in question are also ingested                      possibly, a food supplement) but is in any event not
               with food and/or because — at least where                         a medicine, questions will arise for the Chamber on
               they are taken long-term — regard may have                        the on the applicability of the Novel Foods Regula-
               to be had to the various consumer groups and                      tion, which takes precedence over Paragraph 47a of
               their different sensitivities?                                    the LMBG, and the effect of which may be to
                                                                                remove any interest in legal protection in this case.
                                                                                The Chamber therefore asks:
         b)    Is it an infringement of Community law for the
               specialist authorities to have a discretion under
               national law to determine (individual) upper safe
               levels and any (individual) reductions, subject                   How is the phrase ‘which have not hitherto been
               only to review by the courts?                                     used for human consumption to a significant degree’
                                                                                in Article 1(2) of the Novel Foods Regulation to be
                                                                                interpreted? Is it sufficient that the Netherlands Offi-
     V   a)    If a product may be marketed in at least one                      cial Gazette of 16 February 1995 declared trading in
               other Member State as a foodstuff, is the fact                    a probiotic similar to the contested product called
               that the competent German authority essentially                   Ecologic 316 to be permissible and that, according to
               says that in Germany that there is no ‘nutri-                     the invoice of 20 May 1996 a delivery of Ecologic
               tional need’ for that product significant in terms                326 was made to the applicant, or alternatively what
               of the freedom to market the product as a                         are the minimum requirements that must be met in
               foodstuff (food supplement) in Germany?                           order for there to have been use to a significant
                                                                                degree hitherto for the purposes of Article 1(2) of
                                                                                the Novel Foods Regulation? What is the starting
         b)    If so, is it compatible with Community law for                    point for interpreting the words ‘not hitherto’?
               the authority to have a discretion under
               national law that is subject only to limited
               review by the courts?
                                                                            VIII If the Court declines itself to reply to the questions
                                                                                posed in section A, may the national court then
     VI  If in regard to the questions posed in section III the                  direct questions on the classification of products or
         Court confirms the judgment in van Bennekom and                         indeed scientific or methodological questions to the
         there is no incompatibility in this case with the                       European Food Authority and to what extent are any
         requirements of health protection, how can the                          guidelines provided by that authority binding on the
         request for marketing authorisation be successfully                     national court? Can (or must) such guidelines be
         pursued? Can a decision of general application under                    reviewed by the Community judicature alone or by
         Paragraph 47a of the LMBG be refused, without                           the referring national court also?
         Community law being infringed, on the basis that
         in the German classification system a product is


title: Case C-525/09: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 28 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 28 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-525/09) (1)

   2011/C 80/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Joined Cases T-162/11 and T-163/11: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Cofra v OHIM — O2 (can do) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/32

         Order of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Cofra v OHIM — O2 (can do)
   (Joined Cases T-162/11 and T-163/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 112/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofra Holding (Zug, Switzerland) (represented initially by: K.-U. Jonas and J. Bogatz, and subsequently by M. Viefhues, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: K. Klüpfel, and subsequently by A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Müller and F. Fottner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2011 (Cases R 242/2009-4 and R 246/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALDEMA AG and O2 Holdings Ltd, on the one hand, and between C&A Mode KG and O2 Holdings Ltd, on the other.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to pay their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


24 . 8 . 96         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                     No C 247/ 1
                                                               I
                                                         (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                             Swearing of the oath by a new member of the Court of Justice
                                                        ( 96/C 247/01 )
            Romain Schintgen, appointed judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by
            decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European
            Communities on 8 July 1996 ('), took the oath before the Court of Justice on 11 July 1996 .
            (M OJ No L 178 , 17 . 7. 1996 , p . 31 .
                                          Decisions adopted by the Court of Justice
                                                      on 12 July 1996
                                                        ( 96/C 247/02 )
            On 12 July 1996 the Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the following
            decisions :
            Attachment of Judge Schintgen
            The Court decided to attach Judge Schintgen to the Second and Sixth Chambers .
            Composition of the Second and Sixth Chambers
            1 . The composition of the Second and Sixth Chambers for the period from 12 July 1996 to
                6 October 1996 shall be as follows :
                Second Chamber
                Mr Hirsch, President
                Mr Mancini and Mr Schintgen, Judges
                Sixth Chamber
                Mr Kakouris, President
                Mr Hirsch, Mr Mancini , Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm and Mr Schintgen,
                Judges
 ---pagebreak--- No C 247/2         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                         24 . 8 . 96
           2 . The list for determining the composition of the SixthChamber for the same period under point 4
               of the decision adopted by the Court of Justice at its meeting on 19 September 1 995 ( 1 ) is
               amended as follows :
               Sixth Chamber
               ( President: Judge Kakouris )
               Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm , Mr Mancini , Mr Hirsch and Mr Schintgen,
               Judges .
           (>) OJ No C 2 99 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p . 1 .


title: Case T-50/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/55

         Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)
   (Case T-50/17)
   (2017/C 104/76)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mackevision Medien Design GmbH Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Stolz, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TO CREATE REALITY’ — Application for registration No 15 098 106

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2016 in Case R 995/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-142/08: Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/18

         Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-142/08)
   (2008/C 142/28)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (1), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that directive;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2004/39/EC expired on 31 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1-44.


title: Case C-378/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2014 — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2014 — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski
      (Case C-378/14)
      (2014/C 395/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen

         Respondent: Tomislaw Trapkowski

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In a case where a person residing in one Member State (Germany) has entitlement to child benefit for children who live in another Member State (abroad) with the other spouse from whom he is separated, is the second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 (1) to be applied in such a way that the fiction that, for the purpose of applying Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation No 883/2004, (2) the situation of the whole family is to be taken into account as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned and residing there, in particular as regards a person’s entitlement to claim benefits, leads to the parent residing in the other Member State (abroad) being exclusively entitled to child benefit because the national law of the first Member State (Germany) provides that where several persons are entitled to child benefit, the benefit is granted to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household?

                  2.

                  If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
                  In the situation set out in paragraph 1, is the third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that the parent residing in one Member State (Germany) has the right to child benefit under domestic law because the other parent residing in the other Member State (abroad) has not made an application for child benefit?

                  3.

                  If, in the situation set out in paragraph 1, the answer to the second question is that the failure of the parent residing in another EU Member State to make an application leads to the transfer of the right to child benefit to the parent residing in Germany:
                  After what period of time may it be presumed that a parent residing in another EU Member State is not ‘exercising’ his or her right to child benefit within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, so that the parent residing in Germany has the right to child benefit?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case T-213/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo (Interim measures — Public contracts — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for interim measures — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/10

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo
   (Case T-213/12 R)
   (Interim measures - Public contracts - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for interim measures - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 319/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Elitaliana SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Colagrande, lawyer)

      Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Republic of Kosovo) (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought, in essence, to suspend the execution of the Eulex Kosovo decision rejecting the tender that the applicant had submitted in the public contract award procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX Mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ and awarding that contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-150/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/2

         Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

   (Case C-150/14 P)
   2014/C 372/02
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Christin Vieweg
   By order of 4 September 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-661/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5 — Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark — Consent given in a situation where there is shared use — Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV
   (Case C-661/11) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5 - Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark - Consent given in a situation where there is shared use - Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark)
   2013/C 344/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin y Paz Diffusion SA

      Defendants: David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Proprietor’s rights over a registered mark where there is an extended period of sharing the use of the mark with a third party in a form of co-ownership for part of the goods covered and irrevocable consent given by the proprietor to that third party to use of that mark — National rule prohibiting the proprietor of the mark from making wrongful or abusive use of its right — Prohibition of use of the mark by the proprietor to the detriment of the third party — Penalty

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, precludes a proprietor of trade marks which, in a situation where there has been use shared with a third party, had consented to the use by that third party of signs which are identical to its marks in respect of certain goods in classes for which those marks are registered and which no longer consents to that use, from being deprived of any possibility of asserting the exclusive right conferred upon it by those marks against that third party and of itself exercising that exclusive right in respect of goods which are identical to those of that third party.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-13/09: Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Storck v OHIM (Mouse-shaped chocolate)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/47

         Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Storck v OHIM (Mouse-shaped chocolate)
   (Case T-13/09)
   (2009/C 69/103)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 November 2008 (R 185/2006-4); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark, which represents a mouse made out of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 4 490 447).

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that the trade mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character.

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


title: Case C-478/09: Action brought on 25 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/39

         Action brought on 25 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-478/09)
   2010/C 24/68
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. La Pergola and M. Karanasou Apostopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/63/EC into domestic law expired on 31 September 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 300, 17.11.2007, p. 47


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-165/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of persons — Workers — Spouses — Requirement of a work permit for spouses who are nationals of non-member countries)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-165/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of persons - Workers - Spouses - Requirement of a work permit for spouses who are nationals of non-member countries)
   (2005/C 330/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-165/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 April 2005 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, K. Lenaerts and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing in its legislation an obligation on nationals of non-member countries married to migrant workers from the European Union to obtain a work permit and by failing to bring its legislation into line with Community law, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132 of 28.05.2005.


title: Case C-169/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on  29 March 2006  — The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 29 March 2006 — The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association
   (Case C-169/06)
   (2006/C 121/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc,

      Defendant: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association
   Questions referred
   Where the specification in an application for a protected geographical indication (PGI) in respect of ‘Melton Mowbray Pork Pies’ made pursuant to Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (‘the Regulation’) defines the relevant geographical area pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of the Regulation as
   the town of Melton Mowbray and its surrounding region bounded as follows:

               —

               to the North by the A52 from the M1 and the A1 and including the city of Nottingham;

               —

               to the East by the A1 from the A52 to the A45 and including the towns of Grantham and Stamford;

               —

               to the West by the M1 from the A52 and the A45; and

               —

               to the South by the A45 from the M1 and the A1 and including the town of Northampton

               1.

               are the requirements of Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation capable of being satisfied insofar as the proposed PGI would apply to products produced and/or processed and/or prepared in places other than that whose name appears in the PGI;

               2.

               if so, what criteria must be applied in delimiting the defined geographical area referred to in Articles 2(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Regulation?


title: Case F-12/13: Action brought on 5 February 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/40

         Action brought on 5 February 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-12/13)
   2013/C 108/94
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s claim of harassment.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should

               —

               Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 8 May 2012, rejecting her complaint to the Advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace and concluding that she was not harassed by her former Head of Unit;

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 29 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged on 6 August 2012 pursuant to Article 90(2) SR;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


23.1.1999             EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 20/29
      Removal from the register of Case C-296/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-377/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/48)                                                   (1999/C 20/51)
By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          By order of 9 October 1998, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-296/97 (Reference for a              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für           from the register of Case C-377/97: Commission of the
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Ulrich Gloger v. Bergamt          European Communities v. Greek Republic.
Kamen, intervener: Vertreter des Öffentlichen Interesses
beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
Westfalen (Representative of the Public Interest before the
Higher Administrative Court for the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
                                                                                C-240/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/52)
      Removal from the register of Case C-369/97 ( )1
                       (1999/C 20/49)                            By order of 14 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of        removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          C-240/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
from the register of Case C-369/97 (Reference for a              Ireland, interveners: Federal Republic of Germany,
preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutz-       Kingdom of Denmark and Council of the European Union
verband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth           v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener:
Co Gesellschaft mbH.                                             European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-382/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/50)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/53)
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-382/97 (Reference for a              By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof):             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Gerhard Köbler v. Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, For-          removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (Reference for
schung und Kunst.                                                a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
                                                                 Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Joined Cases C-247/11 P and C-253/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014  — Areva v Alstom SA, T&D Holding SA, formerly Areva T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SA, Alstom Grid AG, formerly Areva T&D AG, European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Obligation to state reasons — Joint and several liability for payment of a fine — Concept of an ‘undertaking’  — ‘De facto’ joint and several liability — Principle of legal certainty and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the offence — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Areva v Alstom SA, T&D Holding SA, formerly Areva T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SA, Alstom Grid AG, formerly Areva T&D AG, European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-247/11 P and C-253/11 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Obligation to state reasons - Joint and several liability for payment of a fine - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - ‘De facto’ joint and several liability - Principle of legal certainty and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the offence - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))
   2014/C 175/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Areva (represented by: A. Schild, C. Simphal and E. Estellon, avocats) (C-247/11 P), Alstom SA, T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, Alstom Grid AG (C-253/11 P) (represented by: J. Derenne, A. Müller-Rappard and M. Lagrue, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alstom SA, T&D Holding, formerly Areva T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SA, Alstom Grid AG, formerly Areva T&D AG (represented by: J. Derenne, A. Müller-Rappard and M. Lagrue, avocats), European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents), Areva (represented by: A. Schild, C. Simphal and E. Estellon, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva and Others v Commission, by which that court dismissed in part the application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899) — Gas insulated switchgear — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Attributability of the unlawful conduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the second indent of paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva and Others v Commission;

               2)

               Annuls Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear);

               3)

               For the infringements established in Article 1(b) to (f) of Decision C(2006) 6762 final, imposes a fine of EUR 27 795 000 on Alstom SA, jointly and severally with Areva Grid SAS, and a fine of EUR 20 400 000 on Areva SA, T&D Holding SA and Alstom Grid AG, jointly and severally with Alstom Grid SAS;

               4)

               Dismisses the appeals as to the remainder;

               5)

               Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own cost in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeals, to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by Areva SA, Alstom SA, T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS and Alstom Grid AG relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeals;

               6)

               Orders Areva SA, Alstom SA, T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS and Alstom Grid AG to bear four-fifths of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeals.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-162/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings before that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren, Solweig Arrborn (Free movement of goods - Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between Member States - Derogations - Protection of the life and health of animals - Improvement of livestock - Breeding of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species - Artificial insemination) (1999/C 1/07)

text:
C 1/4                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.1.1999
2. Annuls the decision adopted by the Commission                     1. Articles 4 and 10 of the Sixth Council Directive
     following the favourable opinion of the Textile                      77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
     Committee, which met on 6 March 1996, concerning                     the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
     the importation of textile products and clothing                     taxes do not preclude a national practice which, in the
     originating in the People's Republic of China;                       case of transactions subject to VAT effected by a
                                                                          company before it was registered for VAT, consists in
                                                                          fixing the starting-point of the limitation period for
                                                                          the recovery of that tax at the 20th of the month
3. Declares that the effects of the annulled decision are                 following the quarter in which that registration took
     to be maintained in force;                                           place.
4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           2. The First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April
                                                                          1967 and the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                          17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                                  Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude the
                                                                          VAT on a benefit granted by an employer to his
                                                                          employee in the form of the placing of a vehicle at his
                                                                          disposal for private use from being calculated by
                                                                          including in the taxable amount the VAT paid by the
                                                                          employer in another Member State on the renting of
                                                                          that vehicle, whereas, if the vehicle had been rented in
                                                                          the Member State in question, the taxable amount
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      would not have included the VAT paid.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                    of 19 November 1998
in Case C-85/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de LieÁge (Belgium)):
SocieÂteÂ FinancieÁre d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and
                        Belgian State (1)
(VAT Ð Limitation period Ð Starting-point Ð Method of
                          calculation)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (1999/C 1/06)
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-162/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                (Language of the case: French)                       the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings before
                                                                     that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren,
                                                                                Solweig Arrborn (1)
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Prohibition of quantitative
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Member States Ð Derogations Ð Protection of the life
                                                                     and health of animals Ð Improvement of livestock Ð
                                                                     Breeding of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine
                                                                                species Ð Artificial insemination)
In Case C-85/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                                     (1999/C 1/07)
LieÁge (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between SocieÂteÂ FinancieÁre
d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and Belgian State on the
interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC                            (Language of the case: Swedish)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1) and Article 95 of the EC                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Treaty Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. L.                        published in the European Court Reports)
Murray (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Chamber, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on                     In Case C-162/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
19 November 1998, in which it has ruled:                             of the EC Treaty by the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt (Sweden)
 ---pagebreak--- 4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 1/5
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren,
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
Solweig Arrborn Ð on the interpretation of Article 30 of
the EC Treaty and Article 2 of Council Directive                                        of 19 November 1998
87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for
breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the              in Case C-210/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
bovine species (OJ L 167, 26.6.1987, p. 54) Ð the Court             the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Haydar Akman v.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting as President          Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined
of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,              party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; J.                                     Verwaltungsgericht Köln (1)
Mischo, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in             (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Ð Freedom of
which it has ruled:                                                 movement for workers Ð Article 7, second paragraph, of
                                                                    Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council Ð Right of
                                                                    a child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of
                                                                    employment in the host Member State in which he has
1. Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Article 2(1) of                  completed vocational training Ð Situation of a child
     Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the            whose father, having been legally employed in the host
     acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred                  Member State for more than three years, has returned to
     breeding animals of the bovine species do not preclude          Turkey at the time when the child's training is completed)
     national rules under which authorisation is required
     for the distribution of and insemination with semen of                                 (1999/C 1/08)
     pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species from
     another Member State, provided that the sole purpose
     of that authorisation is to ensure that the person                            (Language of the case: German)
     authorised possesses the necessary qualifications for
     the operation intended.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2. The second indent of Article 2(1) of Directive                            published in the European Court Reports)
     87/328/EEC precludes national rules which prohibit or
     subject to authorisation the use in the territory of that
     Member State of semen from bulls of the Belgian Blue
                                                                    In Case C-210/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     breed, where they have been accepted for artificial
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln
     insemination in another Member State on the basis of
                                                                    (Administrative Court, Cologne) for a preliminary ruling
     tests carried out in accordance with Commission
                                                                    in the proceedings pending before that court between
     Decision 86/130/EEC of 11 March 1986 laying down
                                                                    Haydar        Akman        and    Oberkreisdirektor        des
     performance monitoring methods and methods for
                                                                    Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined party: Vertreter des
     assessing cattle's genetic value for pure-bred breeding
                                                                    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln Ð
     animals of the bovine species. The national authorities
                                                                    on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 7
     of the Member State of import are not entitled to
                                                                    of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
     reject the use of semen of that breed on the ground
                                                                    development of the Association, adopted by the
     that it carries the muscular hypertrophy gene, or that
                                                                    Association Council established by the Association
     use of the semen would be likely to entail suffering for
                                                                    Agreement between the European Economic Community
     the animals or affect their natural behaviour, or that
                                                                    and Turkey Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
     the breed is regarded by those national authorities as
                                                                    P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
     carrying genetic defects.
                                                                    H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and K. M.
                                                                    Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. Rühl,
                                                                    Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
3. The preamble to Directive 87/328/EEC does not                    on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
     authorise a Member State to prohibit or subject to             follows:
     authorisation the use in its territory of semen from
     pure-bred bulls which have been accepted for artificial
     insemination in another Member State on the basis of           The second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80
     tests carried out in accordance with Decision                  of 19 September 1980, on the development of
     86/130/EEC but are regarded by the national                    the Association, adopted by the Association Council
     authorities of the Member State of import as having            established by the Agreement creating an Association
     an undesirable pedigree.                                       between the European Economic Community and Turkey
                                                                    must be interpreted as follows: a Turkish national such as
                                                                    the plaintiff in the main proceedings is entitled to respond
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                    to any offer of employment in the host Member State after
                                                                    having completed a course of vocational training there,
                                                                    and consequently to be issued with a residence permit,
                                                                    when one of his parents has in the past been legally


title: Joined Cases T-246/04 and T-71/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — Wunenberger v Commission (Officials — Staff Reports — Reporting exercises 1997/1999 and 1999/2001 — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages — Rights of the defence)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — Wunenberger v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-246/04 and T-71/05) (1)

   (Officials - Staff Reports - Reporting exercises 1997/1999 and 1999/2001 - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Rights of the defence)
   (2007/C 82/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jacques Wunenberger (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid, H. Krämer and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)
   Re:
   First, actions for annulment of the applicant's draft staff reports for the periods 1997/1999 and 1999/2001 and the applicant's Career Development Report for the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure and, second, claims for damages for the alleged harm.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 11 September 2003 definitively approving the applicant's Career Development Report for the period 1 July 2001 to 21 December 2002;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 2 500, in addition to the amount of EUR 2 500 already granted by the Appointing Authority, for the delay in drawing up the staff reports for the periods 1997/1999 and 1999/2001, and the symbolic amount of EUR 1 for the delay in drawing up the Career Development Report for the period 2001/2002;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the actions;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 31 March 1998 in Joined Cases C-68/94 French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Federal Republic of Germany, and C-30/95: Société Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA) and Entreprise Minière et Chimique (EMC), supported by French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Kali und Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG (Community control of concentrations between undertakings - Collective dominant position)

text:
C 209/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4.7.98
4. Although a processing undertaking is required to repay            (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/
     the amounts corresponding to the reduction in prices            MdK/Treuhand) (OJ L 186 of 21.7.1994, p. 38) in so far
     and the premium decided on pursuant to Article 4(5)             as it makes the declaration that the concentration is
     of Regulation No 727/70, as amended, the second                 compatible with the common market conditional on
     paragraph of clause 8 of the cultivation contract set           compliance with the conditions set out in point 63 of the
     out in the annex to Regulation No 4263/88 allows, in            decision, and for partial annulment of that decision in so
     such a case, the contract price to be renegotiated              far as it accepted the commitment referred to in point 65
     between the processing undertaking and the tobacco              by which Kali und Salz AG undertook to adapt the
     producers in line with the reduction in the prices and          structure of Potacan by 30 June 1994 Ð the Court,
     premium.                                                        composed of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
                                                                     Gulmann (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Presidents of
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.                                          Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
                                                                     Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,
                                                                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 31 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Annuls Commission Decision 94/449/EC of 14
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         December 1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                      of 31 March 1998                                   Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/
                                                                         M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/MdK/Treuhand).
in Joined Cases C-68/94 French Republic v. Commission
of the European Communities, supported by Federal
Republic of Germany, and C-30/95: SocieÂteÂ Commerciale              2. In Case C-68/94, orders the Commission of the
des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA) and Entreprise MinieÁre                European Communities to pay the costs.
et Chimique (EMC), supported by French Republic v.
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
Kali und Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-                   3. In Case C-30/95, orders the Commission of the
                             AG (1)                                      European Communities to pay the costs, and Kali und
                                                                         Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG to bear
(Community        control    of     concentrations     between           their own costs.
        undertakings Ð Collective dominant position)
                        (98/C 209/02)                                4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, which
                                                                         intervened in Case C-68/94, and the French Republic,
                (Language of the case: French)                           which intervened in Case C-30/95, to bear their own
                                                                         costs.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (1) OJ C 120 of 30.4.1994.
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-68/94: French Republic (Agents: Edwige
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey) v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Berend
Jan Drijber, assisted by Jacques Bourgeois), supported by                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and                                        of 2 April 1998
Bernd Kloke) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/449/EC of 14 December 1993 relating to a                 in Case C-296/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                      the Court of Appeal, England and Wales): The Queen v.
No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/MdK/                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU
Treuhand) (OJ L 186 of 21.7.1994, p. 38) and C-30/95:                Tabac SARL, The Man in Black Limited and John
SocieÂteÂ Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA)                   Cunningham, intervener: Imperial Tobacco Ltd (1)
and Entreprise MinieÁre et Chimique (EMC), represented               (Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general
by Charles Price of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong,                the holding, movement and monitoring of such products
14A Rue des Bains, supported by French Republic                      Ð Member State in which duty is payable Ð Purchase
(Agents: Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and                                          through an agent)
Jean-Marc Belorgey) v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber, assisted by                                          (98/C 209/03)
Jacques Bourgeois), supported by Kali und Salz GmbH
and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG, represented by                                   (Language of the case: English)
Karlheinz Quack and Georg Albrechtskirchinger Ð
application for partial annulment of Article 1 of
Commission Decision 94/449/EC on 14 December 1993                    In Case C-296/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation              of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal, England and


title: Case C-13/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/86/EC — Traceability requirements — Notification of serious adverse reactions and events — Technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-13/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2006/86/EC - Traceability requirements - Notification of serious adverse reactions and events - Technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 24/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Calmieri, acting as Agent, and F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.