title: Case T-100/04: Actionbrought on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini againstCommission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/83

         Action brought on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-100/04)
   (2004/C 106/163)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01 not to include his name on the competition reserve list;

               —

               make an order awarding damages for the material damage suffered, assessed as the difference between the unemployment benefit received after the end of the contract as a temporary member of staff and the salary of an official in Grade A7, step 4 and, secondly, after the period of unemployment, assessed as the amount of the remuneration of an official in Grade 7, step 5;

               —

               make an order awarding damages for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The subject matter of this application concerns the exclusion of the applicant's name from the reserve list resulting from 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.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of Articles 4, 27, 29, 30 and 31 of and Annex III to the Staff Regulations, disregard for the interests of the service, breach of the competition notice and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 1 of Decision 2002/621/EC of the Secretaries General of the Community Institutions inasmuch as two of the successful candidates whose names appear on the reserve list and who are officials are already in Grade A7/A6 and thus occupy posts as economists in that career bracket.
   He further alleges:

               —

               breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in particular inasmuch as the selection board did not apply assessment criteria consistently, so that the applicant did not have the same conditions applied to him as were applied to the other candidates;

               —

               manifest error of assessment in the present case;

               —

               disregard for the principle of sound administration and infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the Annex thereto, inasmuch as the board were not qualified to assess the tests objectively.

         The applicant also alleges irregularity in the conduct of the procedure, misuse of powers and lack of powers and breach of the principle of non-retrospectivity.


title: Case C-252/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Revocation proceedings — Article 51(1)(a) — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/20

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.
   (Case C-252/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Article 51(1)(a) - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75))
   (2016/C 156/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Energy Brands, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-102/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-102/16)
   (2016/C 165/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 be interpreted as meaning that the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation may not be spent inside the vehicle?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation No 561/2006, read in conjunction with Article 19 of the same regulation, then breach the principle of legality in criminal proceedings as expressed in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) in so far as the abovementioned provisions of Regulation No 561/2006 do not expressly provide for the prohibition on spending the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation inside the vehicle?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Regulation No 561/2006 then permit Member States to lay down a prohibition in their national law on spending the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation inside a vehicle?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case C-195/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich (Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) — Definition of "court or tribunal of a Member State" — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Seniority — Part of career spent abroad)

text:
C 95/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           24.3.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    Where a Member State is obliged to take into account, in
                                                                                calculating the pay of contractual teachers and teaching
                                                                                assistants, periods of employment in certain institutions in other
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         Member States comparable to the Austrian institutions listed
                                                                                in Paragraph 26(2) of the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948,
                       of 30 November 2000                                         such period must be taken into account without any temporal
                                                                                limitation.
in Case C-195/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Österreichischer Gewerk-                         (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
schaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik
                             Österreich (1)
(Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment —
            Seniority — Part of career spent abroad)
                            (2001/C 95/02)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                     (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 November 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-384/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
In Case C-195/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Austria, for a preliminary ruling                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
in the proceedings pending before that court between Öster-                 Telecommunications — Interconnection of networks —
reichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher                     Interoperability of services — Provision of universal service)
Dienst and Republik Österreich — on the interpretation of
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
EC) and Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) and                                           (2001/C 95/03)
Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968
(II), p. 475) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                           (Language of the case: French)
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges, F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 30 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    In exercising functions such as those provided for by Para-
      graph 54(2) to (5) of the Arbeits- und Sozialgerichtsgesetz            In Case C-384/99: Commission of the European Communities
      (Law on Labour and Social Courts), the Oberster Gerichtshof            (Agent: B. Doherty) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx)
      constitutes a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177      — application for a declaration that, by failing correctly to
      of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC).                                 implement Article 5 of Directive 97/33/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on intercon-
2.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39          nection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring uni-
      EC) and 7(1) and (4), of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of                versal service and interoperability through application of the
      the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for              principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199,
      workers within the Community preclude a national rule such as          p. 32), in conjunction with Annex I thereto, and by failing to
      Paragraph 26 of the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948 (Federal           adopt all the measures necessary to implement Article 5 of
      Law on Contractual Public Servants of 1948) concerning the             that directive, in conjunction with Annexes I and III thereto,
      account to be taken of previous periods of service for the             the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      purposes of determining the pay of contractual teachers and            under those provisions and under the EC Treaty — the Court
      teaching assistants, where the requirements which apply to             (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      periods spent in other Member States are stricter than those           President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken,
      applicable to periods spent in comparable institutions of the          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      Member State concerned.                                                given a judgment on 30 November 2000, in which it:


title: Case T-152/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Sea Handling v Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/28

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Sea Handling v Commission
   (Case T-152/13)
   2013/C 129/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sea Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi dal Pozzo, M. Merla and L. Cappelletti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision, by which the Commission declared that the measures adopted by SEA, in the form of capital injections in favour of SEA Handling, constituted State aid incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision, by which the Commission ordered the recovery of the alleged State aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that contested in Case T-125/13 Italian Republic v Commission.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of procedural rules.

                           —

                           It is submitted in that regard that Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) has been infringed, that SEA Handling’s procedural rights have been breached, and also that there has been a failure to undertake adequate preliminary inquiries in the light of the scope of the period under investigation, because of the lack of preliminary investigation and assessment in relation to the period 2006-2010.

                           —

                           It is further submitted that the principles of legal certainty and good administration have not been observed in relation to the duration of the procedure and, in particular, the unjustifiably lengthy preliminary investigation.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the involvement of public resources.

                           —

                           On this point, it is submitted that there has been a failure to state the reasons and a failure to undertake adequate preliminary inquiries concerning the lack of a burden on the State finances; nor has it been shown that the resources were in fact available to the State.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards imputability.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the contested decision is not based on an individual examination of the separate decisions to inject capital and the Commission has not provided an explanation as to why there was an overall scheme of State aid in favour of SEA Handling during the period 2002-2010.

                           —

                           In that connection, it is added that the evidence relied on by the Commission is not capable of showing that the measures may be imputed to the State and the Commission has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the parties to show that the measures cannot in fact be imputed to the State.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the private investor principle.

                           —

                           In the applicant’s submission, the Commission has not proved that in actual fact a private investor comparable to SEA would not have opted for the recapitalisation of its subsidiary, and the Commission has merely disputed in general terms the correctness of the parameters used by SEA for the purposes of its business choices.

                           —

                           It should also be found that there was a failure to place in context the measures within the SEA Group, that the facts were incorrectly evaluated in terms of the comparison between SEA Handling and the other market operators and that the private investor principle has been misapplied due to a failure to analyse the individual injections of capital.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant submits on that point that the Commission erred in law with regard to the scope of the guidelines for the airport sector, inasmuch as those guidelines were not applicable to the present case.

                           —

                           It should also be found that there has been a manifest error of assessment and a failure to state the reasons in applying the rescuing and restructuring guidelines, in so far as the Commission (i) distorted the meaning of the requirement that the company’s long-term viability must be restored, (ii) erred in rejecting the compensatory measures offered by SEA in the context of the restructuring of its subsidiary and (iii) failed to have due regard to the fact that the disputed capital injections were at all times carried out strictly on the basis of what was necessary for the restructuring of the company.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: unlawfulness of the order for recovery.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the order for recovery is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case F-52/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 October 2015 — Xenakis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Automatic retirement — Retirement age — Request to extend the period of employment — Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to extend the period of employment — Interest of the service)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 October 2015 — Xenakis v Commission
   (Case F-52/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Automatic retirement - Retirement age - Request to extend the period of employment - Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to extend the period of employment - Interest of the service))
   (2015/C 406/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Yannis Xenakis (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the application to extend the applicant’s service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 31 October 2014 and application for damages in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered and the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in respect of the non-material harm alleged.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Xenakis to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 38.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-150/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 and 30 EC — Directive 65/65/EEC — Food preparations containing vitamins A, D or K or minerals in the chromate group or containing more than once the daily amount of other vitamins or minerals — Preparations lawfully marketed as food supplements in the Member State of exportation — Preparations classified as medicinal products in the Member State of importation — “Medicinal product” — Obstacle — Justification — Public health — Proportionality)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-150/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 and 30 EC - Directive 65/65/EEC - Food preparations containing vitamins A, D or K or minerals in the chromate group or containing more than once the daily amount of other vitamins or minerals - Preparations lawfully marketed as food supplements in the Member State of exportation - Preparations classified as medicinal products in the Member State of importation - “Medicinal product” - Obstacle - Justification - Public health - Proportionality)
   (2004/C 118/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-150/00: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. C. Schieferer), with an address for service in Luxembourg v Republic of Austria (Agents: initially H. Dossi and subsequently C. Pesendorfer), with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by the Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin), with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for a declaration that by classifying vitamin and mineral based preparations as medicinal products where the quantity of vitamin compound exceeds the simple daily amount, and, more generally, where those preparations contain vitamins A, D or K or minerals in the chromate group, without stating that the higher amount of vitamins or their vitamin or mineral content poses a serious health risk, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by automatically classifying as medicinal products vitamin preparations or preparations containing minerals lawfully manufactured or marketed as food supplements in the other Member States if they contain either more vitamins, other than vitamins A, C, D or K, or minerals, other than those in the chromate group, than the simple daily amount of those nutrients, or vitamins A, D or K, regardless of content, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Case C-380/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg)) — DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts (Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Tax legislation — Capital tax — Conditions for granting a reduction in capital tax — Situation where a company is no longer liable to capital tax following transfer of its seat to another Member State — Restriction — Justification — Overriding reasons in the public interest)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg)) — DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts
   (Case C-380/11) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Tax legislation - Capital tax - Conditions for granting a reduction in capital tax - Situation where a company is no longer liable to capital tax following transfer of its seat to another Member State - Restriction - Justification - Overriding reasons in the public interest)
   2012/C 355/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C.

      Defendant: Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Capital tax — National legislation making the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax in the Member State concerned for the next five tax years — Situation where a company is no longer liable for capital tax following the transfer of its seat to another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax for the next five tax years.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-554/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 November 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/32

      Appeal brought on 2 November 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
      (Case C-554/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/60)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  (a)

                  set aside the order of 21 September 2011 and refer the case back to the General Court, directing it to carry out a new assessment after delivery of the judgment in Case T-300/10;
                  in the alternative, rule on the case itself;

                  (b)

                  order the Commission to pay the costs which arose out of the interlocutory proceedings to which the order under appeal relates and the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appeal is against the order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV, by which that Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on proceedings which the appellant and applicant at first instance had brought against a decision of the Commission in 2005. The original action was directed against the Commission’s refusal to grant the appellant full access to the file in respect of the contract LIEN 97-2011.
      By the appeal the appellant criticises the order of the General Court on the grounds of incorrect application of the rules of procedure, in particular the inadequate coordination of the proceedings in Cases T-36/10 and T-141/05 RENV, by which its interests were, according to the appellant, seriously undermined. In addition, the General Court made an incorrect decision on costs to the appellant’s disadvantage.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 1996 in Case C-315/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC, 93/52/EEC, 93/61/EEC and 93/85/EEC)

text:
 11.1.97              I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/9
— Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      limit values and quality objectives for discharges of                                   ( Sixth Chamber)
      certain dangerous substances included in List I of the
      Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (6 ),                                                   of 7 November 1996
                                                                      in    Case    C-3 15/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( ')
and in particular with Article 3 of each of those
Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to              (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
fulfil its obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty — the                Directives 93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC, 93/52/EEC, 93/61/
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                                        EEC and 93/85/EEC)
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ),                                            ( 97/C 9/16 )
C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 November 1996, in which it:                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
1 . Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      time-limits, the necessary measures to comply with:                        published in the European Court Reports)
     — Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982                  In Case C-3 15/95 : Commission of the European
          on limit values and quality objectives for mercury          Communities (Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian
          discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry,       Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by
                                                                      Ivo Braguglia ) — application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                      adopting and bringing into force within the prescribed
     — Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September                   periods the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
          1983 on limit values and quality objectives for             necessary to comply with:
          cadmium discharges,
                                                                      — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
     — Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984                        setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to be
          on limit values and quality objectives for mercury               met by fruit plant propagating material and fruit
          discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali                plants intended for fruit production, pursuant to
          electrolysis industry,                                           Council Directive 92/34/EEC (2 ),
     — Council Directive 84/491 /EEC of 9 October 1984                — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993
          on limit values and quality objectives for                       setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to be
          discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane, and                         met by ornamental plant propagating material and
                                                                           ornamental plants pursuant to Council Directive 91/
                                                                           682/EEC ( 3 ),
     — Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on
          limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
          certain dangerous substances included in List I of          — Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993
          the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC,                               amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health
                                                                           conditions governing intra-Community trade in and
                                                                           importation from third countries of embryos of
                                                                           domestic animals of the bovine species ( 4),
     and in particular with Article 3 of each of those
     Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
     to fulfil its obligations under those Directives.                — Commission Directive 93/61/EEC of 2 July 1993
                                                                           setting out the schedules indicating the conditions to
                                                                           be met by vegetable propagating and planting
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      material, other than seed pursuant to Council
     costs.
                                                                           Directive 92/33/EEC ( 5 ), and
(!)  OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 , p . 9 .                            — Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on
(2)  OJ No L 81 , 27. 3 . 1982 , p . 29 .                                  the control of potato ring rot ( 6 ),
(3)  OJ No L 291 , 24 . 10 . 1983 , p. 1 .
(4 ) OJ No L 74 , 17. 3 . 1984, p. 49 .
(5)  OJ No L 274, 17. 10 . 1984, p . 11                               the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(6)  OJ No L 181,4 . 7. 1986 , p . 16 .                               pursuant to those Directives and pursuant to the EC
                                                                      Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.
                                                                      Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
                                                                      Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 9/ 10             1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-                    Bravo-Ferrer Delgado, Abodago del Estado ), the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
7 November 1996, in which it:                                           Nicholas Khan ), and the Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan
                                                                        Devadder) — application for the annulment of Council
1 . Declares that, by not adopting and bringing into force              Directive 93/ 104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
      within the prescribed periods the laws, regulations and           certain aspects of the organization of working time (2 )
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with:               and, in the alternative, of Article 4, the first and second
      — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993                  sentences of Article 5 , Article 6 (2 ) and Article 7 of that
          setting out the schedule indicating the conditions            Directive — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
          to be met by fruit plant propagating material and             Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de
          fruit plants intended for fruit production, pursuant          Almeida ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
          to Council Directive 92/34/EEC,                               ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
                                                                        Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
      — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993                  G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger,
          setting out the schedule indicating the conditions            Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
          to be met by ornamental plant propagating                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 1996 , in
          material and ornamental plants pursuant to                    which it:
          Council Directive 91 /682/EEC,
      — Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993                     1 . Annuls the second sentence of Article 5 of Council
          amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health                      Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
          conditions governing intra- Community trade in                      concerning certain aspects of the organization of
          and importation from third countries of embryos                     working time.
          of domestic animals of the bovine species,
                                                                        2 . Dismisses the remainder of the application.
      — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 2 July 1993
          setting out the schedules indicating the conditions
                                                                        3 . Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
          to be met by vegetable propagating and planting
                                                                              Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
          material, other than seed pursuant to Council
          Directive 92/33/EEC,
                                                                        4 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations               Spain and the Commission of the European
      pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 93/48/EEC,                          Communities to bear their own costs.
      Article 8 of Directive 93/49/EEC, Article 2 of
      Directive 93/52/EEC and Article 7 of Directive 93/61 /            0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 , p. 13 .
      EEC.                                                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 307, 13 . 12 . 1993 , p . 18 .
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
0)    OJ No  C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 , p . 11
(2 )  OJ No L 250, 7. 10. 1993 , p . 1 .
(3 )  OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 9.
(4 )  OJ No L 175, 19 . 7. 1993 , p. 21 .                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
(5 )  OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .                               Circondariale di Pavia by order of that court of
(6 )  OJ No L 259, 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                             17 October 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending
                                                                        before that court against Luigi Bazzan, Adriano Filippo
                                                                                Calvini and Agostino Traverso
                                                                                ( Case C-359/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/18 )
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 12 November 1996
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
in Case C-84/94: United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    the European Communities by order of the Pretura
     Northern Ireland v. Council of the European Union ( ' )            Circondariale di Pavia ( Pavia District Court) of 17 October
(Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects                 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
of the organization of working time — Action for                        4 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                               annulment)                               proceedings pending before that court against Luigi
                                                                        Bazzan, Adriano Filippo Calvini and Agostino Traverso on
                               ( 97/C 9/17)                             the questions whether Article 1 ( 1 ) of Law No 1369 of
                 (Language of the case: English)                        23 October 1960, in conjunction with Article 11 ( 1 ) of
                                                                        Law No 264 of 29 April 1949, is compatible with the
In Case C-84/94 : United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   Community principles enshrined in Articles 48 , 49, 54 and
Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted by                   90 of the EC Treaty and whether those principles are
Michael J. Beloff and Eleanor Sharpston) v. Council of the              directly applicable, with the result that the Italian
European Union (Agents: Antonio Sacchettini, Jill Aussant               legislation must be disapplied.
and Sophia Kyriakopoulou), supported by the Kingdom of
Spain (Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel


title: Case T-158/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Iralco v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Iralco v Council
   (Case T-158/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 363/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Aluminium Co. (Iralco) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, M. Lester and M. Happold, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed Iranian Aluminium Co. (Iralco) in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed Iralco in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 to be maintained as regards Iralco until the entry into force of the order to annul Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iralco.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-379/06 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2006 by Larry Murphy against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03: Cathal Boyle and others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/26

         Appeal brought on 14 September 2006 by Larry Murphy against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03: Cathal Boyle and others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-379/06 P)
   (2006/C 281/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Larry Murphy (represented by: P. Gallagher SC, A. Collins SC, D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of June 13, 2006 in so far as it dismissed the application in Case T-236/03, Larry Murphy v. Commission for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC (1) of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall as it applied to the safety capacity application for proposed new RSW vessel to replace the MFV Menhaden.

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall as it applied to the safety capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to replace the MFV Menhaden.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:
   By determining the appellant's interest in bringing the proceedings by reference to the date of the adoption of decision 2003/245 and not the date on which the application was lodged the Court of First Instance applied an incorrect legal test;
   The Court made a substantive error apparent from the documents submitted to it, namely as to the appellant's ownership of the MFV ‘Menhaden’ at all times material to the application;
   The finding that the appellant was not individually concerned by decision 2003/245 ‘since the vessels in question are fictitious’ has no basis in law and is, moreover, contradicted by the reasoning of the Court of First Instance in its judgment;
   The appellant is, and at all material times has been, the owner of the MFV ‘Menhaden’. It therefore cannot be said to have lost the interest it unquestionably had at the commencement of its action for the annulment of decision 2003/245 in so far as it impacted upon its application for safety tonnage in respect of the proposed MFV ‘Menhaden’;
   The Court of First Instance erred in finding that the appellant was deprived of standing to seek the annulment of decision 2003/245 by reason of the steps it took to mitigate the loss and damage sustained as a result of that measure.

      (1)  OJ L90, P.48


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 October 2000 in Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH v the Commission of European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing phentermine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Need to balance interests)

text:
7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 108/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                            INSTANCE                                     Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                       of 31 October 2000                                H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
                                                                         suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
in Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH v Commission of the                   of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
                    European Communities                                 for placing on the market medicinal products for human
                                                                         consumption containing in particular norpseudoephedrine
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing                (C(2000) 608) — the President of the Court of First Instance
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-              made an order on 31 October 2000, the operative part of
ing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency                   which is as follows:
                  — Need to balance interests)
                                                                         1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                         (2001/C 108/38)                                      Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                                                                              authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for
                                                                              human consumption containing Clobenzorex, Fenbutrazat,
                  (Language of the case: German)                              Fenproporex, Mazindol, Mefenorex, Norpseudoephedrine,
                                                                              Phenmetrazine, Phendimetrazine and Propylhexedrine
In Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH, established in Konstanz                   (C(2000) 608) is suspended.
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,
Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                2.   Costs are reserved.
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
for placing on the market medicinal products for human                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
consumption containing in particular norpseudoephedrine                                              INSTANCE
(C(2000) 608) — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 31 October 2000, the operative part of                                         of 31 October 2000
which is as follows:
                                                                         in Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH v the
1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the                      Commission of European Communities
     Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
     authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for     (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
     human consumption containing Clobenzorex, Fenbutrazat,              authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
     Fenproporex, Mazindol, Mefenorex, Norpseudoephedrine,               ing phentermine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
     Phenmetrazine, Phendimetrazine and Propylhexedrine                                      Need to balance interests)
     (C(2000) 608) is suspended.
2.   Costs are reserved.                                                                          (2001/C 108/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, established
                                                                         in Vienna, represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                            INSTANCE                                     Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                       of 31 October 2000                                H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
                                                                         suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
in Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH v Commission of the                    of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
                    European Communities                                 for placing on the market medicinal products for human
                                                                         consumption containing phentermine (C(2000) 452) — the
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing                President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-              31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
ing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency
                  — Need to balance interests)                           1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                                                                              Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                         (2001/C 108/39)                                      authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
                                                                              for human consumption containing the following substance:
                                                                              phentermine (C(2000) 452) is suspended.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   Costs are reserved.
In Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH, established in Schwaig
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,


title: Case C-226/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Brigitte Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Brigitte Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-226/17)
   (2017/C 231/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brigitte Wittmann

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

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


title: Case T-448/07: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — YKK and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Markets for zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’ , and for attaching machines — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Coordinated price increases, fixing of minimum prices, customer-sharing, market-sharing and exchange of other commercial information — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence — Nature and implementation of the infringement — Real impact — Leniency Notice — Fines — Upper limit — Dissuasive effect of the fine — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — YKK and Others v Commission
   (Case T-448/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’, and for attaching machines - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Coordinated price increases, fixing of minimum prices, customer-sharing, market-sharing and exchange of other commercial information - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence - Nature and implementation of the infringement - Real impact - Leniency Notice - Fines - Upper limit - Dissuasive effect of the fine - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2012/C 243/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: YKK Corp. (Tokyo, Japan), YKK Holding Europe BV (Sneek, Netherlands), YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented initially by H. Kaneko and C. Verannemann, lawyers, and subsequently by H. Kaneko, G. Williamson, Solicitor, and N. Green QC,

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of their respective fines

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-161/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision withdrawing residence authorisation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law — Plea based on public policy)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/18

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge
   (Case C-161/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision withdrawing residence authorisation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law - Plea based on public policy))
   (2016/C 156/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

      Defendant: État belge

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law is admissible only if that plea is based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, must be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfies the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-369/15 to C-372/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Siderúrgica Sevillana SA (C-369/15), Solvay Solutions Espana SL (C-370/15) Cepsa Química SA (C-371/15), Dow Chemical Ibérica SL (C-372/15) v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Method for allocating quotas free of charge — Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annex II — Validity — Application of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to plants in sectors subject to a high risk of carbon leaks — Decision 2-11/278/EU — Article 10(9) — Validity)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/18

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Siderúrgica Sevillana SA (C-369/15), Solvay Solutions Espana SL (C-370/15) Cepsa Química SA (C-371/15), Dow Chemical Ibérica SL (C-372/15) v Administración del Estado
   (Joined Cases C-369/15 to C-372/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Method for allocating quotas free of charge - Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annex II - Validity - Application of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to plants in sectors subject to a high risk of carbon leaks - Decision 2-11/278/EU - Article 10(9) - Validity))
   (2017/C 014/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Siderúrgica Sevillana SA (C-369/15), Solvay Solutions Espana SL (C-370/15) Cepsa Química SA (C-371/15), Dow Chemical Ibérica SL (C-372/15)

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Interveners: Repsol Petróleo SA BP, Oil Espana SAU (C-371/15)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               It is not apparent either from the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, read in the light of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, nor from . 2013/448/EU: Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, that, when determining the maximum annual quantity of greenhouse gas emission allowances, the European Commission excluded emissions other than those attributable to electricity producers.

               2.

               Examination of question 3b has revealed nothing which affects the validity of Article 15(3) of Decision 2011/278.

               3.

               Examination of question 4 has revealed nothing to affect the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 10(9) of Decision 2011/278.

               4.

               Article 4 of and Annex H to Decision 2013/448 are invalid.

               5.

               The effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of and Annex H to Decision 2011/278 are limited in time and so, firstly, the declaration has no effects until the expiry of a period of 10 months, to run from the date of the delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016, Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311), in order to permit the European Commission to adopt the measures necessary and, secondly, the measures adopted until that deadline on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 1997 in Case C-246/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court by the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal): Mary Teresa Magorrian and Irene Patricia Cunningham against Eastern Health and Social Services Board, Department of Health and Social Services (Equal pay for male and female workers - Article 119 of the EC Treaty - Protocol 2 annexed to the Treaty on European Union - Occupational social security schemes - Exclusion of part-time workers from status conferring entitlement to certain additional pension benefits - Date from which such benefits must be calculated - National procedural time-limits)

text:
C 41/6                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.2.98
     such against such a person, there is no need to                  Ð the public placement offices are manifestly unable to
     examine whether Article 6 of the First Directive 68/                 satisfy demand on the market for all types of activity,
     151/EEC has direct effect.                                           and
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
                                                                      Ð the actual placement of employees by private
                                                                          companies is rendered impossible by the maintenance
                                                                          in force of statutory provisions under which such
                                                                          activities are prohibited and non-observance of that
                                                                          prohibition gives rise to penal and administrative
                                                                          sanctions, and
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                      Ð the placement activities in question could extend to
                    of 11 December 1997                                   the nationals or to the territory of other Member
                                                                          States.
in Case C-55/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte d'Appello, Milan): Non-contentious proceedings
    brought before that court by Job Centre Coop. arl (1)             (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
(Freedom to provide services Ð Placement of employees
Ð Exclusion of private undertakings Ð Exercise of
                       official authority)
                          (98/C 41/09)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 December 1997
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        in Case C-246/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling to
          published in the European Court Reports)                    the Court by the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the
                                                                      Fair Employment Tribunal): Mary Teresa Magorrian and
                                                                      Irene Patricia Cunningham against Eastern Health and
                                                                      Social Services Board, Department of Health and Social
In Case C-55/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       Services (1)
of the EC Treaty by the Corte d'Appello, Milan, Italy, for
a preliminary ruling in the non-contentious proceedings               (Equal pay for male and female workers Ð Article 119 of
(giurisdizione volontaria) brought before that court by Job           the EC Treaty Ð Protocol 2 annexed to the Treaty on
Centre Coop. arl Ð on the interpretation of Articles 48,              European Union Ð Occupational social security schemes
49, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 66, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty Ð              Ð Exclusion of part-time workers from status conferring
the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: R. Schintgen,                  entitlement to certain additional pension benefits Ð Date
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of               from which such benefits must be calculated Ð National
the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini and P. J. G. Kapteyn                                     procedural time-limits)
(Rapporteur), Judges; B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on 11 December                                         (98/C 41/10)
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Public placement offices are subject to the prohibition
contained in Article 86 of the EC Treaty, so long as
application of that provision does not obstruct the
performance of the particular task assigned to them. A                In Case C-246/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Member State which prohibits any activity as an                       of the EC Treaty by the Office of the Industrial Tribunals
intermediary between supply and demand on the                         and the Fair Employment Tribunal, Belfast, for a
employment market, whether as an employment agency or                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
as an employment business, unless carried on by those                 court between Mary Teresa Magorrian, Irene Patricia
offices, is in breach of Article 90 (1) of the Treaty where it        Cunningham and Eastern Health and Social Services
creates a situation in which those offices cannot avoid               Board, Department of Health and Social Services, on the
infringing Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case, in             interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and of
particular, in the following circumstances:                           Protocol 2 concerning Article 119 of that Treaty, annexed
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 41/7
to the Treaty on European Union Ð the Court (Sixth                   1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the
Chamber) composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                 protection of the interests of members and others, are
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                     required by Member States of companies within the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn,               meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Cosmas,                       Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a                  throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
judgment on 11 December 1997, the operative part of                  1968 (I), p. 41) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
which is as follows:                                                 of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; A.
                                                                     La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
1. Periods of service completed by part-time workers                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December
     who have suffered indirect discrimination based on sex          1997, in which it has ruled:
     must be taken into account as from 8 April 1976, the
     date of the judgment in Case C-43/75 Defrenne, for
     the purposes of calculating the additional benefits to          The rules governing the enforceability as against third
     which they are entitled.                                        parties of acts done by members of company organs in
                                                                     circumstances where there is a conflict of interests with
                                                                     the company fall outside the normative framework of the
2. Community law precludes the application, to a claim               First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on
     based on Article 119 of the EC Treaty for recognition           coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the
     of the claimants' entitlement to join an occupational           interests of members and others, are required by Member
     pension scheme, of a national rule under which such             States of companies within the meaning of the second
     entitlement, in the event of a successful claim, is             paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to
     limited to a period which starts to run from a point in         making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
     time two years prior to commencement of proceedings             Community, and are matters for the national legislature.
     in connection with the claim.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     in Case C-129/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     of 16 December 1997                             the Belgian Conseil d'EÂtat): Inter-Environnement Wallonie
in Case C-104/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                             ASBL v. ReÂgion Wallonne (1)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coöperatieve Rabobank                (Directive 91/156/EEC Ð Period for transposition Ð
Vecht en Plassengebied' BA v. Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud                               Effects Ð Definition of waste)
         (receiver in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV) (1)
                                                                                (98/C 41/12)
(Company law Ð First Directive 68/151/EEC Ð Scope Ð
Representation of a company Ð Conflict of interests Ð
Lack of authority of a director to enter into a binding                             (Language of the case: French)
            transaction on behalf of the company)
                          (98/C 41/11)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case C-129/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'EÂtat for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and
                                                                     ReÂgion Wallonne Ð on the interpretation of Articles 5
In Case C-104/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           and 189 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1(a) of Council
of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                  Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194,
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a preliminary                 25.7.1975, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32)
between Coöperatieve Rabobank Vecht en Plassengebied'               Ð the Court composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud (receiver in bankruptcy               President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,
of Mediasafe BV) Ð on the interpretation of Article 9(1)             Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March                 Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,


title: Case T-247/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Flavia Angeletti and A. Van Meuter against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.2.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/23
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Flavia Angeletti
                                                                         and A. Van Meuter against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
                      of 9 November 1999
in Case T-114/99: CSR Pampryl SA v Commission of the                                             (Case T-247/99)
                   European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 —                                             (2000/C 34/45)
Registration of a designation of origin — ‘Pays d’Auge/Pays
              d’Auge-Cambremer’ — Inadmissible)
                          (2000/C 34/44)                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Flavia Ange-
In Case T-114/99: CSR Pampryl SA, whose registered office is             letti and A. Van Meuter, with Mauro Cimino, of the Fermo Bar,
in La Courneuve, France, represented by Dominique Couturier-             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Heller, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                 Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix
de Bourbon, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: José Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Xavier Lewis) —            The applicants claim that the Court should:
application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 378/1999 of 19 February 1999 supplementing the Annex
to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names              — annul the following decisions of the appointing authority:
in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and
protected geographical indications’ provided for in Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographi-              1. No 2161 of 12 September 1999 concerning the response
cal indications and designations of origin for agricultural                   to the complaint submitted by Flavia Angeletti, and
products and foodstuffs (OJ 1999 L 46, p. 13) in so far as it
registers the names ‘Pays d’Auge/Pays d’Auge-Cambremer’ as
a protected designation of origin — the Court of First Instance          2. No 1979 of 26 July 1999 concerning the response to the
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,                       complaint submitted by André Van Meuter.
C.W. Bellamy and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
made an order on 9 November 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:
1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible;                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2. It is unnecessary to adjudicate on the application for leave to       By the present action, it is sought to obtain an order directing
     intervene made by the French Republic;                              the Commission to take certain urgent measures and to
                                                                         compensate the applicants for the damage suffered as a result
3. The applicant shall bear its own costs and also those incurred by     of working in the Berlaymont Building which previously
     the Commission;                                                     accommodated 1 237 tons of asbestos and 10 664 tons of
                                                                         asbestos fill by way of insulating material.
4. The party which applied for leave to intervene shall bear its own
     costs.
                                                                         The applicants put forward various factual arguments which,
                                                                         in their view, demonstrate negligent management on the part
                                                                         of the authorities responsible for dealing with the asbestos
                                                                         problem in the Berlaymont Building.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.


title: Case C-518/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Carrying out real estate activities)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-518/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Carrying out real estate activities)
   2011/C 269/10
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I Rogalski and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, and N. Ruiz, advogado)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Carrying out real estate activities

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by permitting activities of real estate brokers to be carried out only within real estate agencies;

                           —

                           by requiring real estate brokerages and real estate agents established in other Member States to cover their professional liability by taking out insurance which complies with Portuguese legislation;

                           —

                           by requiring real estate brokerages established in other Member States to hold positive equity within the meaning of that legislation, and

                           —

                           by making real estate brokerages and real estate agents established in other Member States subject to the full disciplinary control of the Instituto de Construção e do Imobiliário IP,

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU, and

                           —

                           by requiring real estate brokerages to carry out exclusively real estate brokerage activities, with the exception of the management of real property on behalf of third parties, and

                           —

                           by requiring real estate agents to carry out exclusively real estate agency activities,

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-127/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/25

         Action brought on 4 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR)
   (Case T-127/13)
   2013/C 129/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 11 December 2012 in Case R 1900/2011-2, in so far as, by dismissing the action brought by the applicant, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division to grant in part the Community word mark No 4 782 215‘PRO OUTDOOR’;

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PRO OUTDOOR’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25, 28 and 35

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word elements ‘OUTDOOR GARDEN BARBECUE CAMPING’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 18, 22, 24, 25 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, and Rules 48 and 49 of Regulation No 2868/95

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 March 2004 in Case T-216/99: Ter Huurne's Handelsmaatschappij BV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Failure of applicant to act — No need to give a decision)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/39

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 23 March 2004
   in Case T-216/99: Ter Huurne's Handelsmaatschappij BV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Failure of applicant to act - No need to give a decision)
   (2004/C 118/84)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-216/99: Ter Huurne's Handelsmaatschappij BV, established in Haaksbergen (Netherlands), represented by H.C van der Sijs, lawyer, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. Fierstra and L. Cuelenaere, subsequently by L. Cuelenaere and V. Koningsberger and, finally, by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agents, against the Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by G. Rozet and H. Speyart, subsequently by G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, Agents) – application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 concerning aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 Dutch service stations in the region bordering Germany (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87) – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N. J Forwood, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung (Administrator), made an order on 23 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision on the present action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission. The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000


title: Case T-591/14: Action brought on 8 August 2014  — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/24

         Action brought on 8 August 2014 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast)
   (Case T-591/14)
   2014/C 351/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2014 in Case R 359/2014-5;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PerfectRoast’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11 — Community trade mark registration No 1 2 1 73  902

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.