title: Case C-195/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Concept of waste — Food scraps from the agro food industry intended for the production of animal feed — Leftovers from the preparation of food in kitchens, intended for shelters for pet animals)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-195/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Concept of waste - Food scraps from the agro food industry intended for the production of animal feed - Leftovers from the preparation of food in kitchens, intended for shelters for pet animals)
   (2008/C 51/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent and G. Bambara, lawyer)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — National law excluding certain waste from the scope of the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, by:

                           —

                           adopting operational instructions valid for the whole of the national territory, specified in particular in the circular of 28 June 1999 of the Minister for the Environment setting out explanatory guidance on the concept of waste and in the communication of the Ministry of Health of 22 July 2002 containing guidelines on the health and hygiene requirements relating to the use for animal feed of materials and by-products deriving from the production and commercial cycle of the agro-food industry, the purpose of which was to exclude, from the scope of the legislation on waste, food scraps from the agro-food industry intended for the production of animal feed; and

                           —

                           excluding, by means of Article 23 of Law No 179 of 31 July 2002 laying down provisions on environmental matters, from the scope of the legislation on waste leftovers from the kitchen preparation of all types of solid food, cooked and uncooked, which have not entered the distribution system and are intended for shelters for pet animals;

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case F-60/15: Action brought on 22 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/48

         Action brought on 22 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-60/15)
   (2015/C 213/78)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the President of OHIM of 4 June 2014 terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff, a claim to be reinstated by OHIM if possible, and if not, to receive fair financial compensation for the alleged unlawful termination of his contract, and finally a claim for damages and interest for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the President of OHIM of 4 June 2014 terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

               —

               Consequently, order the reinstatement of the applicant and order the defendant (i) by way of damages and interest, to pay the applicant the remuneration in respect of the period from the date on which the termination of his contract took effect until the date of his reinstatement on account of the annulment of the decision taken and (ii) to reconstitute the applicant’s career unlawfully halted by the decision to terminate his contract;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the applicant’s reinstatement results in significant practical difficulties or is excessive with regard to the situation of a third party, order the defendant to pay fair financial compensation for the unlawful termination of the applicant’s contract, taking into account not only the loss of remuneration with regard to the past but also the applicant’s genuine opportunity to remain in the service of OHIM until retirement age under a contract for an indeterminate period and to develop in his career;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay damages and interest to compensate for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 15  000;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-91/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Caixabank S.A. v Héctor Benlliure Santiago

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Caixabank S.A. v Héctor Benlliure Santiago
   (Case C-91/16)
   (2016/C 175/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixabank S.A.

      Defendant: Héctor Benlliure Santiago

      Question referred

   Is the use of an agreed remunerative interest rate in a situation in which default interest is applicable in accordance with Directive 93/13 (1) or, on the contrary, does it presuppose an amendment of the contract which is not permitted under EU case-law?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


               30.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/10

         Action brought on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-6/15)
   (2015/C 143/11)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Xavier Lewis and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The applicant requests EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By maintaining in force Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), or, alternatively, Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The case concerns the requirement under Norwegian law (Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation) for undertakings wishing to carry out construction services in Norway to be approved by local municipalities before they start their activity. Such approval must be obtained before every individual construction project.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the requirement amounts to a restriction which cannot be justified under Article 16(1) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (the ‘Services Directive’) or, alternatively, that such measure amounts to a restriction of freedom to provide services under Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, which cannot be justified under Article 33 of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               Norway claims that, in principle, such an authorisation scheme is not contrary to the Services Directive since it can be justified under Article 16(1) and (3) of that Directive.


title: Case T-496/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/57

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)
   (Case T-496/12)
   2013/C 26/116
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 682/2011-4; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant.

      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 figurative mark ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588288

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-138/04: Action brought on 15 March 2004 against the Kingdom of Denmark by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/1

         Action brought on 15 March 2004 against the Kingdom of Denmark by the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-138/04)
   (2004/C 168/01)
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal and T. Fich, acting as Agents, against the Kingdom of Denmark.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not allowing persons transferring definitively their normal residence to Denmark to benefit from the exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183/EEC with respect to the ‘registration fee’ which is, in reality, a tax on consumption, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and Directive 83/183/EEC (1).

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and principal arguments:
   The registration fee on motor vehicles is charged when the vehicle is registered for the first time in Denmark, so that persons importing their vehicles with a view to using them in Denmark as part of their transferring their normal residence from another country to Denmark are also subject to the tax.

               —

               The Commission is of the view that the registration fee thereby constitutes a ‘consumption tax normally charged on personal property imported permanently from another Member State by private individuals’, for which the Member States are to grant an exemption pursuant to Article 1(1) of the directive.

         The registration fee is without doubt a ‘consumption tax’, since it is charged on a consumer good, it is calculated on the basis of the economic value of that good and it is charged only once.
   Nor can there be any doubt that it is ‘normally charged on personal property imported permanently … by private individuals’. The fact that it is not charged until the vehicle is registered does not change the fact that the registration is a prerequisite to being able to use the vehicle on the roads in Denmark. The import of a vehicle by a person transferring his residence can only have as its purpose the use of that vehicle for its intended purpose.

               —

               The Commission is also of the view that the registration fee cannot be considered as being one of the ‘specific and/or periodical duties and taxes connected with the use of such property within the country’ which Article 1(2) of the directive excludes from the scope of the exemption.

         That exclusion applies only to taxes relating to the actual use of the property in question and taxes which may be charged to ensure payment for services which are closely connected to the use of that property.
   Article 1(2) gives three examples of such taxes which fall outside the exemption, namely ‘motor vehicle registration fees, road taxes and television licences’. A common trait of those examples is that they are not consumption taxes but rather relate to the ongoing use of the property in question or ensure that the public authorities do not bear the costs associated with the use of that property.
   According to the Commission, the reference to motor vehicle registration fees must, therefore, be interpreted as referring only to the taxes relating to the actual registration of the vehicle.
   This view is also supported by an examination of the different language versions of Article 1 of the directive. Apart from the German and Danish texts, which both use the same term in Article 1(1) and (2), that is, ‘Abgaben’ and ‘afgifter’, respectively, all of the other language versions use different terms in Article 1(1) and (2), namely ‘taxes’ et ‘droits’ in French, ‘taxes’ and ‘fees’ in English, etc. It is obvious that the terms ‘droits’ and ‘fees’ can only refer to fees paid for a service.
   It is not possible to consider the registration fee as payment for a service, since it is calculated on the basis of the value of the motor vehicle, currently 105 % of the value, up to DKK 57 400 (corresponding to EUR 7 735) and 180 % of the residual value of the motor vehicle at the time of registration, including VAT.

      (1)  Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (OJ 1983 L 105, 23 April 1983, p. 64).


title: Case T-313/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — Otsuka Chemical v EFSA

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — Otsuka Chemical v EFSA
   (Case T-313/06) (1)

   (2008/C 92/92)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-51/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06: gencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/17

         Appeal brought on 1 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06: gencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-51/10 P)
   2010/C 113/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/2006

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court

               —

               Order OHMI to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR (1) in the it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant's mark was not registrable.
   The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR or Article 76 CTMR, or both of these provisions, in not taken proper account of the practice of OHMI as regards registration of marks consisting of numerals or indication the content of publications.

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


title: Case T-316/10: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — HIM v Commission

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/21

         Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — HIM v Commission
   (Case T-316/10) (1)

   2011/C 113/44
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-615/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(1)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Article 8 — Exception to right of access — Protection of personal data — Concept of ‘Personal data’ — Conditions for transfer of personal data — Names of authors of each comment on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draft guidance relating to scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market — Refusal of access)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Commission
   (Case C-615/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Article 8 - Exception to right of access - Protection of personal data - Concept of ‘Personal data’ - Conditions for transfer of personal data - Names of authors of each comment on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draft guidance relating to scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market - Refusal of access))
   (2015/C 311/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and C. Pintado, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by B. Martenczuk and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by A. Buchta and M. Pérez Asinari, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA (T-214/11, EU:T:2013:483);

               2)

               Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 12 December 2011;

               3)

               Orders the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) in the appeal and in the proceedings at first instance;

               4)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the appeal and the proceedings at first instance;

               5)

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-100/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Giannini v Commission (Public service — General competition — Non-inclusion in the reserve list — Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result — Equal treatment — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Giannini v Commission
   (Case T-100/04) (1)

   (Public service - General competition - Non-inclusion in the reserve list - Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result - Equal treatment - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 107/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Massimo Giannini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, L. Lozano Palacios and M. Velardo, acting as Agents, and subsequently, G. Berscheid, acting as Agent, and M. Genton, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of economics and statistics (OJ 2001 C 240 A, p. 12) not to include his name on the competition reserve list, and an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Commission to pay its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the applicant;

               3.

               orders the applicant to pay one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-403/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission decision approving a project relating to border security in the Philippines — Decision adopted on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 — Commission's implementing powers — Limits)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-403/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Commission decision approving a project relating to border security in the Philippines - Decision adopted on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 - Commission's implementing powers - Limits)
   (2007/C 315/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, E. Waldherr, K. Lindahl and G. Mazzini, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Tufvesson and A. Bordes, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decision approving a project relating to border security in the Philippines (ASIA/2004/016-924; budgetary line 19 10 02) adopted in implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992 on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America (OJ 1992 L 52, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court :

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities approving a project relating to border security in the Republic of the Philippines to be financed by budget line 19 10 02 in the general budget of the European Communities (Philippines Border Management Project, No ASIA/2004/016-924);

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-286/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 March 2011 in Case F-21/10 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/35

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 March 2011 in Case F-21/10 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-286/11 P)
   2011/C 232/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; and

               —

               grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance under appeal;

         or, in the alternative:

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to above.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging absolute failure to state reasons concerning the claim for damages.

                           —

                           The following are alleged in this regard: failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion of the facts, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful.

                           —

                           It is submitted in particular in this connection that an order that a party to proceedings reimburse costs to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of that court can be justified only on the basis of facts closely connected with the case in question and not on the basis of alleged conduct on the part of that party in other cases.


title: Case T-126/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Inspired by efficiency — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/76

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)
   (Case T-126/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Inspired by efficiency - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/169
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Interroll (Sant’ Antonino, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Böhm and N. Ehlers, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of word sign Inspired by efficiency as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Interroll Holding AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-371/03, Vincenzo Le Voci v Council of the European Union (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Breach of the competition notice — Irregularity in the conduct of the tests of such a kind as to distort the results — Principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 July 2005
   in Case T-371/03, Vincenzo Le Voci v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Internal competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Breach of the competition notice - Irregularity in the conduct of the tests of such a kind as to distort the results - Principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration)
   (2005/C 229/30)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-371/03: Vincenzo Le Voci, an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal and E. Oude Elferink, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application for annulment of the procedure in internal competition Council/A/270 or, in the alternative, of the Selection Board's decision not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in that competition, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case C-442/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 August 2011 — Novartis AG v Actavis UK Ltd

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 August 2011 — Novartis AG v Actavis UK Ltd
   (Case C-442/11)
   2011/C 311/44
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novartis AG

      Defendant: Actavis UK Ltd

      Questions referred

   Where a supplementary protection certificate has been granted for a product as defined by Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) for an active ingredient, are the rights conferred by that certificate pursuant to Article 5 of the Regulation in respect of the subject matter as defined in Article 4 of the Regulation infringed:

               (i)

               by a medicinal product that contains that active ingredient (in this case valsartan) in combination with one or more other active ingredients (in this case hydrochlorothiazide); or

               (ii)

               only by a medicinal product that contains that active ingredient (in this case valsartan) as the sole active ingredient?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
   OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Case F-70/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE
   (Case F-70/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/66
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 29.


               29.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/31

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein, dated 9 July 2015, in the Case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG
   (Case E-16/15)
   (2016/C 357/11)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 July 2015 from Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein (The Supreme Court, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information referred to therein and in Annex III(A)(a)(11) and (a)(12) and (B)(b)(2) for unit-linked life assurance policies must also be fulfilled in the case where a person who, by a legal transaction, has acquired a unit-linked life assurance policy from another person with the consent of the assurer through the transfer of the contract (‘second-hand policies’)?

         In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, the following additional question is asked:

               2.

               Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the legal transfer of the contract for a unit-linked life assurance policy, only general information must be provided to the new policy holder or is the assurance company also required to provide the new policy holder with information specifically regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him, in particular regarding any differences between the risk profiles of the existing policy holder and of the transferee?

               3.

               Are the provisions concerning the assurer’s obligations under Annex III(B)(b)(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance effectively transposed into national law even if national law provides, in Annex 4(II)(2) of the Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz (Law on insurance supervision, VersAG), in the case of unit-linked assurance policies, that during the term of an assurance contract information must be provided on the units underlying the assurance policy and the nature of the assets contained therein only where the changes in the information provided stem from ‘amendments of the law’ but not also ‘in the event of a change in the policy conditions’ (Annex III(B)(b)(2) to Directive 2002/83/EC)?


title: Case T-249/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — MHCS/OHIM — Ambra (DORATO)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/39

         Action brought on 2 May 2013 — MHCS/OHIM — Ambra (DORATO)
   (Case T-249/13)
   2013/C 207/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L-E. Balleydier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ambra S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures;

               —

               Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision;

               —

               Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs.

      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 figurative mark containing a device of a bottle neck label and the word element ‘DORATO’ for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 131 228

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of a bottle neck label for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-394/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia — Bulgaria) — Valeri Hariev Belov v CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Concept of ‘national court’ — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia — Bulgaria) — Valeri Hariev Belov v CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and Others
   (Case C-394/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘national court’ - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 86/06
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, Bulgaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valeri Hariev Belov

      Defendants: CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD, Lidia Georgieva Dimitrova, Roselina Dimitrova Kostova, Kremena Stoyanova Stoyanova, CHEZ Razpredelenie Balgaria AD, Ivan Kovarzhchik, Atanas Antonov Dandarov, Irzhi Postolka,Vladimir Marek, Darzhavna Komisia po energi

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(a) and (b), Article 3(1)(h) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22), Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recital 29 in the preamble to, and Articles 1 and 13(1) of, Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 64), Article 3(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37), Article 3(7) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55) — Administrative practice of granting an electricity distribution undertaking freedom to install in Roma districts electricity meters attached to electricity poles in the streets at a height which is not accessible to users, and which does not enable consumers living in those districts to read their meters, whereas electricity meters are installed at an accessible height outside of Roma districts — Right or interest of the final electricity user to regularly check the electricity meeting reading — Burden of proof in discrimination cases.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia in its order for reference of 19 July 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99 and C-336/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Others v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento, Hotel Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc and Others v Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento, and Tumedei SpA v Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer capable of being clearly deduced from case-law)

text:
C 200/36                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     even where the tax in question is levied on that part of the net assets
                                                                           which is made up of the share capital as set out annually in the
                                                                           balance sheet.
                          (First Chamber)
                         of 15 March 2001                                  (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999 (C-279/99, C-296/99, C-336/99);
                                                                               OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999 (C-293/99); OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999
                                                                               (C-330/99).
in Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99
and C-336/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento):
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Others v Direzione delle
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento, Hotel Bellavista di
Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc and Others v Ufficio Imposte
Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle
Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento, and Tumedei SpA
v Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                              Trento (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer capable
            of being clearly deduced from case-law)
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
                          (2001/C 200/65)
                                                                           in Case C-518/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Richard Gaillard v Alaya
                                                                                Chekili (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Brussels
                                                                           Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction in
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in
                   in the European Court Reports)                          immovable property — Scope — Action for rescission of a
                                                                              contract of sale of immovable property and for damages)
In Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99
and C-336/99: references to the Court under Article 234 EC                                           (2001/C 200/66)
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento
(Tax Court of First Instance, Trento) (Italy) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Direzione delle Entrate per la                                (Language of the case: French)
Provincia di Trento (C-279/99), between Energy Service Srl
and Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
(C-293/99), between Pavarini Components SpA and Direzione                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (C-296/99), between                                  in the European Court Reports)
Hotel Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni Hotel
Plaza di Cattoni Gian Carlo e C. Snc, Villa Luti Srl and Ufficio
Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento, Centro di Servizio delle               In Case C-518/99: reference to the Court pursuant to the
Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento (C-330/99), and between              Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Tumedei SpA and Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e                 Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdic-
Indirette di Trento (C-336/99) on the interpretation of Council            tion and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                   matters from the Cour d’appel, Bruxelles (Court of Appeal,
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969          Brussels) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of               before that court between Richard Gaillard and Alaya Chekili
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court                            — on the interpretation of Article 16(1) of the Convention of
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                    27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;                   the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made             Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
an order on 15 March 2001, the operative part of which is as               Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 —
follows:                                                                   see p. 77 for the amended text) and by the Convention of
                                                                           25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
                                                                           (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect           of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive           J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying on               Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets,       made an order on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-345/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Article 7(1) and (2), Article 9, Article 10 and Article 15(1) — Incorrect transposition — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Directive 2010/31/EU — Article 29)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/38

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-345/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Article 7(1) and (2), Article 9, Article 10 and Article 15(1) - Incorrect transposition - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Directive 2010/31/EU - Article 29)
   2013/C 225/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by A. De Stefano, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to lay down an obligation to present, when buildings are sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate, in accordance with Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in having failed to notify the European Commission of the measures transposing Article 9 of Directive 2002/91, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-439/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC DRA SPEED SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Failure to provide a factual description — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/17

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC DRA SPEED SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
   (Case C-439/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Failure to provide a factual description - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 63/32
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC DRA SPEED SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Secția Bacău Secția Comercială, Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State — Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State — Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU — Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-664/16: Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/22

         Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)
   (Case T-664/16)
   (2017/C 070/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PJ (represented by: B. Schürmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the mark at issue: Applicant

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Erdmann & Rossi’ — EU trade mark No 10 310 481

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 in Case R 1670/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the invalidity proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of Articles 52, 56, 63, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               infringement of Rules 50, 55 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 216/96;

               —

               infringement of Article 6 ECHR;

               —

               infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case C-172/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-172/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/39)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-249/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (Representation of a chicken) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing a chicken — Earlier national figurative mark representing a chicken — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity between goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (Representation of a chicken)
   (Case T-249/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing a chicken - Earlier national figurative mark representing a chicken - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity between goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 178/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanco, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Segura Roda, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marsalman, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2011 (Case R 1073/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanco, SA and Marsalman, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 February 2011 (Case R 1073/2010-2);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case T-392/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
   (Case T-392/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 204/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l'information (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2010 (Case R 892/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC CASH as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l'information to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-700/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — LEK farmacevtska družba d.d. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Food supplements falling under heading 2106 — Active ingredient as the essential component — Possible classification in Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature — Goods presented and marketed as medicinal products)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — LEK farmacevtska družba d.d. v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-700/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Food supplements falling under heading 2106 - Active ingredient as the essential component - Possible classification in Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature - Goods presented and marketed as medicinal products))
   (2017/C 046/12)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d.

      Defendant: Republika Slovenija

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that goods which fall within the definition of ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011, are not automatically required to be classified under that heading.

               2.

               The Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff set out in Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which have beneficial effects on health and in which the essential component is an active ingredient that is found in food supplements classified under tariff heading 2106 of the CN, although they are presented by their manufacturer as medicinal products and are marketed and sold as such, fall under that heading.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/18

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 29 October 2013 in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger
   (Case E-24/13)
   2014/C 88/15
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 November 2013 from Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 November 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger, on the following questions:

               1.

               What are the general requirements of EEA law and European law (in particular Articles 43 and 49 EC and the obligation of transparency derived therefrom) regarding the procedure for awarding casino concessions?

               2.

               Does EEA law or European law require that an authority seeking to award a concession states at the time at which it publishes its tender notice how it intends to supplement and specify in greater detail the requirements set out in the act and the regulation?

               3.

               In particular, in the context of the relevant tendering procedure, is there a general obligation to give prior notice of the relative weighting that will be given to the award criteria when awarding the concession? If that question is answered in the affirmative, what requirements do EEA law and European law impose as regards the substance of the information that must be provided in that prior notice?

               4.

               In the case at hand, were the requirements of EEA law and European law satisfied?

               5.

               If the EFTA Court finds that the tendering procedure did not comply with the requirements of EEA law and European law:

                           (a)

                           Do EEA law and European law establish specific legal consequences in the case of procedural errors of that kind?

                           (b)

                           Can procedural errors of that kind be cured? If so, under what conditions?

                           (c)

                           In the case at hand, were the requirements met to set aside the whole tendering and concession award procedure?


title: Case T-25/14: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2015 — Spain v Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/41

         Order of the General Court of 4 May 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-25/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/67)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-429/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directives 93/104/EC and 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Fire-fighters employed in the public sector — Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC — Maximum weekly working time — Exceeded — Reparation for loss or damage caused by breach of European Union law — Conditions on which right to reparation depends — Procedural rules — Obligation to make a prior application to the employer — Form and extent of reparation — Additional time off in lieu or financial compensation — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle
   (Case C-429/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directives 93/104/EC and 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Fire-fighters employed in the public sector - Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC - Maximum weekly working time - Exceeded - Reparation for loss or damage caused by breach of European Union law - Conditions on which right to reparation depends - Procedural rules - Obligation to make a prior application to the employer - Form and extent of reparation - Additional time off in lieu or financial compensation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2011/C 30/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Halle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Günter Fuß

      Defendant: Stadt Halle

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Halle — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) and, in particular, Article 6(b), Article 16(b) and the second paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2003/88/EC — National rules providing, in contravention of those directives, a working time exceeding 48 hours per week for officials on operational duties in the professional fire service — Right of an official who has exceeded the maximum number of working hours to compensation in the form of time off in lieu or financial remuneration

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A worker such as Mr Fuß in the main proceedings who has completed, as a fire-fighter employed in an operational service in the public sector, a period of average weekly working time exceeding that provided for in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, may rely on European Union law to establish the liability of the authorities of the Member State concerned in order to obtain reparation for the loss or damage sustained as a result of the infringement of that provision.

               2.

               European Union law precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings,

                           —

                           which makes a public sector worker’s right to reparation for loss or damage suffered as a result of the infringement by the authorities of the Member State concerned of a rule of European Union law — in the present case Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 — conditional on a concept of fault going beyond that of a sufficiently serious breach of European Union law, it being for the referring court to establish whether such a condition exists, and

                           —

                           which makes a public sector worker’s right to reparation for the loss or damage suffered as a result of the infringement by the authorities of the Member State concerned of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 conditional on a prior application having been made to his employer in order to secure compliance with that provision.

               3.

               The reparation, for which the authorities of the Member States are responsible, of the loss or damage caused by them to individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law must be commensurate with the loss or damage sustained. In the absence of relevant European Union law provisions, it is for the national law of the Member State concerned to determine, while ensuring observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, first, whether reparation for the loss or damage suffered by a worker such as Mr Fuß in the main proceedings, as a result of the breach of a rule of European Union law, should take the form of additional time off in lieu or financial compensation for the worker and, second, the rules concerning the method of calculation of that reparation. The reference periods provided for in Articles 16 to 19 of Directive 2003/88 are irrelevant in that regard.

               4.

               The answers to the questions referred by the referring court are the same irrespective of whether the facts of the main proceedings fall under the provisions of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, or those of Directive 2003/88.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-359/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 July 2014  — ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 July 2014 — ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS
   (Case C-359/14)
   2014/C 329/11
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE

      Defendant: If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 [June] 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1), which provides that ‘[w]here the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected’, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, German law has to be applied?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the principle laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, the law to be applied to the dispute between the insurer of the tractor and the insurer of the trailer must be determined in accordance with the law of the country of the place in which the damage resulting from the road accident occurred?

      (1)  OJ L 177, p. 6.

      (2)  OJ L 199, p. 40.


title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-283/97)

text:
27. 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Portuguese
The third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                                                          Republic
requires the Member States to which a directive is                                                    ( Case C-285/97)
addressed to ensure that their legislation is in compliance
with the directive within the prescribed period . When the                                              ( 97/C 295/34 )
period prescribed in Article 10 of Directive 92/73/EEC
expired on 31 December 1993 , France had not adopted
the necessary measures .                                                  An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(>) OJ L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 8 .
                                                                          on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .                   Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
(») OJ L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 13 .                                     of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                 Belgium                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           ( Case C-283/97 )                                     Commission Directive 94/5 1 /EC (') of 7 November
                                                                                1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                             ( 97/C 295/33 )                                     90/21 9/EEC ( 2 ) on the contained use of genetically
                                                                                modified micro-organisms, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
before the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the                              Article 2 of Directive 94/5 1 /EC,
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service,
and O. Couvert-Castera, a national civil servant on                       — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
secondment to that service, acting as Agents, with an                            the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      under those provisions,
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                   — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
       92/73/EEC ( x ) of 22 September 1992 widening the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
       scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2) and 75/31 9/EEC ( 3 )            those in Case C-282/97 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposing
       on the approximation of provisions laid down by                    the Directive expired on 30 April 1995 .
       law, regulation or administrative action relating to
       medicinal products and laying down additional                      (') OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p . 29 .
       provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the                  ( 2 ) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            (■') See page 20 of this Official Journal .
       under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
submitted in Case C-282/97 (4 ).                                                                             Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-286/97
O OJ L 297, 13 . 10.1992, p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965—1966 , p. 20 .                                                    97/C 295/35 )
(') OJ L 147, 9 . 6.1975 , p . 13 .
( 4 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .
                                                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case T-574/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/23

         Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)
   (Case T-574/11)
   2012/C 6/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Unipol Banca SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: P. Costa and P. Creta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfut am Main, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 13 July 2011 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 0597/2010-2 brought on 14 April 2010 by Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and, accordingly

               —

               Grant Community trade mark application No 005240080 filed on 18 July 2006 concerning the sign unicard also in respect of the services referred to in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Unipol Banca SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘unicard’ (application for registration No 5.240.080) for services in Class 36

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’ (No 991.995), ‘UNIGLOBAL’ (No 991.996) and ‘UniGarant’ (No 30 138 306,5) for services in Class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the application for registration of the mark in question

      Pleas in law: Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-372/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Dimos Kerateas v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit — Inadmissible)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Dimos Kerateas v Commission
   (Case T-372/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limit - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 171/69)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimos Kerateas (Municipality of Keratea), Greece (represented by: A. Papakonstantinou and M. Khaïntarlis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Steiblytė, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 5611 of 22 December 2004 concerning the grant of a financial contribution from the Cohesion Fund for the carrying out of a waste management project in Attica (Greece).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Dimos Kerateas shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283 of 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-484/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2014  — Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2014 — Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH
   (Case C-484/14)
   (2015/C 046/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tobias Mc Fadden

      Defendant: Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH

      Questions referred

               1

                  Question 1

               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (1), in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in conjunction with Article 1 point 2 of Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘normally provided for remuneration’ means that the national court must establish whether:

                           a.

                           the person specifically concerned, who claims the status of service provider, normally provides this specific service for remuneration,
                           or

                           b.

                           there are on the market any providers at all who provide this service or similar services for remuneration,
                           or

                           c.

                           the majority of these or similar services are provided for remuneration?

               2

                  Question 2:

               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘provision of access to a communication network’ means that the only criterion for provision in conformity with the Directive is that access to a communication network (for example, the internet) should be successfully provided?

               3

                  Question 3:

               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in conjunction with Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ‘provision’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), the mere fact that the information society service is made available, that is to say, in this particular instance, that an open WLAN is put in place, is sufficient, or must the service be ‘actively promoted’, for example?

               4

                  Question 4:

               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘not liable for the information transmitted’ precludes as a matter of principle, or in any event in relation to a first established copyright infringement, any claims for injunctive relief, damages or payment of the costs of the warning notice and court proceedings which the person affected by a copyright infringement pursues against the access provider?

               5

                  Question 5:

               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) in conjunction with Article 12(3) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must not to allow the national court, in substantive proceedings against the access provider, to make an order requiring the access provider to refrain in future from enabling third parties to make a particular copyright-protected work available for electronic retrieval from online exchange platforms via a specific internet connection?

               6

                  Question 6:

               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the provision contained in Article 14(1)(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC is to be applied mutatis mutandis to a claim for a prohibitory injunction?

               7

                  Question 7:
               Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) in conjunction with Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that the requirements applicable to a service provider are confined to the condition that a service provider is any natural or legal person providing an information society service?

               8

                  Question 8:
               If Question 7 is answered in the negative, what additional requirements must be imposed on a service provider for the purposes of interpreting Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’)?

               9

                  Question 9:

                           (a)

                           Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), taking into account the existing protection of intellectual property as a fundamental right forming part of the right to property (Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the provisions of the following directives on the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright:

                                       —

                                       Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society;

                                       —

                                       Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

                                 and taking into account the freedom of information and the fundamental right under EU law of the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union),
                           to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a decision of the national court, in substantive proceedings, whereby the access provider is ordered, with costs, to refrain in future from enabling third parties to make a particular copyright-protected work or parts thereof available for electronic retrieval from online exchange platforms via a specific internet connection and it is left to the access provider to determine what specific measures he will take in order to comply with that order?

                           (b)

                           Does this also apply where the access provider is in fact able to comply with the prohibition imposed by the court only by terminating or password-protecting the internet connection or examining all communications passing through it in order to ascertain whether the particular copyright-protected work is unlawfully transmitted again, and this fact is apparent from the outset rather than coming to light only in the course of enforcement or penalty proceedings?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18.


title: Case T-191/16: Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v European Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/33

         Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v European Commission
   (Case T-191/16)
   (2016/C 251/39)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the action;·

               —

               annul the contested act or decision of 16/02/2016 of the European Commission C(2016) 1080 ‘on the recovery of a total amount of EUR 109 415,20 plus interest due by LITO HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN SA’;

               —

               declare that the work time provided by the applicant’s staff for the performance of the project is what is stated as fact in the action;

               —

               take account of the applicant’s submissions if the Court holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 5 November 2009 are to be refunded

               —

               annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;

               —

               set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for ten years;

               —

               hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant relies on six pleas in law:

               1.

               The first plea is based on an infringement of a rule of law by the European Commission and the impossibility of the European Commission adopting an act that is challengeable under Article 263 TFEU with respect to this case.

               2.

               The second plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the evidence submitted to it.

               3.

               The third plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the substantive arguments submitted to it during the whole procedure.

               4.

               The fourth plea is based on an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               5.

               The fifth plea is that the existence of a term of the contract which provides for only one way of proving the work done is abusive.

               6.

               The sixth plea is that the sum sought by the Commission’s claim is out of time.