title: Case T-171/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Léon Van Parys v Commission

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/28

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-171/14)
   2014/C 151/36
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the letter from the Commission of 24 January 2014 informing the applicant of the suspension of the time-limit for dealing with the case pursuant to Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93;

               —

               declare that Article 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 applies fully and to the applicant’s advantage following the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10 (Ref: REM/REC 07/07);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 (1) and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof concerning the right to good administration.

                           —

                           By the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10 Firma Léon Van Parys v Commission, Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 was annulled ex tunc; the nine-month time-limit for dealing with the case having already expired, the Commission had therefore ceased to be in a position to decide on the application for remission.

                           —

                           At the very least, the Commission has exceeded its powers in so far as its actions go beyond what is required in order to bring its — partly annulled — decision in line with the General Court’s judgment of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10. The Commission has thereby infringed the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU in relation to its power to take measures to comply with judgments of the Court.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93 and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the Commission has unlawfully availed itself of the opportunity to seek information in accordance with Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93, in order to preclude or at least to delay any future application of Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 146, 21.6.2003

text:
5.7.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 158/29
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 158/53)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 146, 21.6.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 135, 7.6.2003
         OJ C 124, 24.5.2003
         OJ C 112, 10.5.2003
         OJ C 101, 26.4.2003
         OJ C 83, 5.4.2003
         OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-10/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative) — Cynthia Mattern, Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre du Travail et de l'Emploi (Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Family members — Right of a national of a third country married to a Community national to take up an activity as an employed person — Conditions)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative) — Cynthia Mattern, Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre du Travail et de l'Emploi
   (Case C-10/05) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Family members - Right of a national of a third country married to a Community national to take up an activity as an employed person - Conditions)
   (2006/C 143/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour administrative
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cynthia Mattern, Hajrudin Cikotic

      Defendant: Ministre du Travail et de l'Emploi
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 39 of the EC Treaty and 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) — National of a third country, married to a national of a Member State, seeking exemption from the requirement to obtain a work permit in that Member State — Community national spouse who has attended a vocational training course and professional training in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992, does not confer on a national of a third country the right to take up an activity as an employed person in a Member State other than the one in which his spouse, a Community national, pursues or has pursued an activity as an employed person in exercise of her right to free movement.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


title: Case T-189/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Active substance tolperisone — Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Commission decision ordering the Member States to vary the national marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing the active substance at issue — Burden of proof — Proportionality)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission
   (Case T-189/13) (1)

   ((Medicinal products for human use - Active substance tolperisone - Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Commission decision ordering the Member States to vary the national marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing the active substance at issue - Burden of proof - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 034/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Ambrosius, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, then B. R. Killmann and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 369 (final) of 21 January 2013 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tolperisone’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2103.


title: Case T-71/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/29

         Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)
   (Case T-71/14)
   2014/C 129/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Panavision Europe Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 November 2013 given in Case R 470/2012-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SWATCHBALL’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 543 524

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International Registrations and Community trade mark registrations of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘swatch’ and the word mark ‘SWATCH’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-267/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres
   (Case C-267/12)
   2012/C 250/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frédéric Hay

      Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

      Question referred

   Must Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as meaning that the choice of the national legislature to allow only persons of different sexes to marry can constitute a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim such as to justify indirect discrimination resulting from the fact that a collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry, thereby necessarily excluding from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-93/03: Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/42              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar Guer-                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
rero against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                      —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
                                                                               applicant’s candidacy for the post of Grade A 2 as
                         (Case T-92/03)                                        Director of DG INFSO/A: ‘Information Services: policy
                                                                               and regulation’;
                        (2003/C 112/78)                                  —     annul the decision of the Commission of 29 March 2002;
                  (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar                     The applicant, an official of the Commission, objects to the
Guerrero, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Albert                  Commission’s decision to reject his candidacy for the post of
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Étienne Marchal and Sébastien Orlan-            Grade A 2 as Director of DG INFSO/A: ‘Information Services:
di, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                  policy and regulation’.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to include the                 —     breach of the obligation to provides reasons;
      applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted to
      Grade A5 for promotions round 2002, a decision which               —     infringement of Article 4, Article 7, the third paragraph
      results from the publication in ‘Informations administrat-               of Article 27, Article 26(1)(a) and Article 45 of the Staff
      ives’ No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;                                         Regulations;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
                                                                               discrimination;
                                                                         —     manifest error of assessment;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     infringement of the rules of conduct adopted by the
                                                                               Commission for filling of posts at grades A 1 and A 2.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges breach of
the obligation to state reasons. He also alleges breach of
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal        Furthermore, he claims that the professional requirements for
treatment, of the principle that an official is entitled to              the post, as set down in the notice of vacancy, are unlawful
reasonable career prospects and of the principles of proper              inasmuch as they are not directed at securing the services of
administration and sound management.                                     officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
                                                                         integrity in relation to the duties to be performed.
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris
                                                                         Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord S.p.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-93/03)                                                            (Case T-94/03)
                        (2003/C 112/79)                                                           (2003/C 112/80)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris,                European Communities on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord
residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Albert Coolen,            S.p.A., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Gabriele Donà and
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers.                            Elena Perricone, lawyers.


title: Case T-363/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Gruppo Lepetit (RESVEROL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RESVEROL — Earlier international word mark LESTEROL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Gruppo Lepetit (RESVEROL)
   (Case T-363/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RESVEROL - Earlier international word mark LESTEROL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 46/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gruppo Lepetit SpA (Lainate, Italy)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 1204/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Lepetit SpA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc., to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-248/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Czech Republic v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted due to the accession of new Member States — Act of Accession of 2003 — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary legislation — Decision 2007/361/EC)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-248/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted due to the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary legislation - Decision 2007/361/EC)
   2012/C 138/19
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented: initially by T. Boček, and subsequently by: M. Smolek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant(s): European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski; subsequently by: M. Dowgielewicz; and finally by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic and to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-306/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 11 July 2001 in case of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., Siegburg, 6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft, 8. See-Krankenkasse gegen Mundipharma Gmbh

text:
27.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 303/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  1.    May nationals of a Member State of the European
Catania — 4th Civil Section by order of 12 July 2001 in                       Union rely on free movement of capital for a domestic
joined civil actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni                     transaction if national law lays down a prohibition of
SpA and Others, and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni                        discrimination against that country’s own nationals but
                            and Others                                        does not expressly guarantee citizens of the Union free
                                                                              movement of capital in the national legislation?
                         (Case C-297/01)
                                                                        2.    Is it compatible with free movement of capital for
                         (2001/C 303/09)                                      authorisation by the land transfer authority, which has
                                                                              constitutive effect, to be required for the acquisition of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        building land which has not been built on?
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court
of 12 July 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on            3.    What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of
26 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the joined civil                    Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on wholly new
actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni SpA and Others                   kinds of situations requiring authorisation under land
and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni and Others on the                      transfer law, not created until after signature of the EEA
following questions:                                                          Agreement on 2 May 1992?
1.    On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may
      transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
      of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
      and come within the scope of the prohibition under
      Article 87 EC?
If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative,
2.    In light of the considerations set out in the grounds
      hereof can the transitional rules under examination come
      within the provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
                                                                        richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 11 July 2001 in
If the answer to Question 2 is negative,                                case of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der
                                                                        Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungs-
3.    In light of the general principles of Community law and           krankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftli-
      in particular those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can          chen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestellten-
      the transitional rules under examination be deemed                krankenkassen e.V., Siegburg, 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
      compatible with the EC Treaty and the Community legal             Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft, 8. See-Krankenkasse
      order?                                                                               gegen Mundipharma Gmbh
                                                                                (Case C-306/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 303/11)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Feldkirch by order of that court of 14 June 2001 in the
land register proceedings brought by Doris Salzmann née
                               Greif                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                         (Case C-300/01)                                (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 11 July 2001 received
                                                                        at the Court Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling on the same questions as referred to the Court in Case
                         (2001/C 303/10)                                C-264/01 (1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch), Austria, of 14 June              (1) See page 5 of this Official Journal.
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the land register proceedings
brought by Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following
questions:


title: Case T-60/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2012 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ROYAL SHAKESPEARE — Earlier Community word mark RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY — Relative grounds for invalidity — Mark with a reputation — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of association — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2012 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)
   (Case T-60/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ROYAL SHAKESPEARE - Earlier Community word mark RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY - Relative grounds for invalidity - Mark with a reputation - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of association - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)
   2012/C 250/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: H.-G. Zeiner and S. Di Natale, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Royal Shakespeare Company (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Barnett, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 317/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between The Royal Shakespeare Company and Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-398/10: Action brought on 5 August 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/19

         Action brought on 5 August 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-398/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/29
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, and administrative provisions, necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) or in any event by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/2/EC into domestic law expired on 15 May 2009.


title: Case T-66/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — British Sky Broadcasting Group v OHIM — Vortex (SKY)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — British Sky Broadcasting Group v OHIM — Vortex (SKY)
   (Case T-66/08) (1)

   (2009/C 32/94)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case C-352/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Community market in stainless steel flat products — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Powers of the Commission — Principles of nulla poena sine lege and res judicata — Rights of the defence — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Transfer of liability by means of a statement — Limitation period — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v European Commission
   (Case C-352/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in stainless steel flat products - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Powers of the Commission - Principles of nulla poena sine lege and res judicata - Rights of the defence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Transfer of liability by means of a statement - Limitation period - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
   2011/C 152/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt, and S. Thomas, Universitätsprofessor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS and, in the alternative, the application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision — Cartel on the market for stainless steel flat products — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after expiry of the ECSC Treaty, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Infringement of nulla poene sine lege and res judicata principles and of Articles 5, 7(1) and 83 EC — Infringement of applicable rules concerning time-bar for proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-300/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — AMGA v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — AMGA v Commission
   (Case T-300/02) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 180/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (AMGA) (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: ASM Brescia SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by G. Caia, V. Salvadori, N. Pisani and F. Capelli, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (AMGA) to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Orders ASM Brescia SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-182/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative lodged on  10 April 2006  — État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative lodged on 10 April 2006 — État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink
   (Case C-182/06)
   (2006/C 143/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour administrative (Luxembourg)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État du grand-duché de Luxembourg

      Defendants: Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink
   Question referred
   Is Article 39 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules, such as those introduced in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 157ter of the Law on Income Tax, under which a Community national not resident in Luxembourg who receives income of Luxembourg origin from employment, which constitutes the major part of his taxable resources, cannot rely on his negative rental income relating to property situated in another Member State, in this case Germany, which he does not himself occupy, for the purposes of the determination of the tax rate applicable to his Luxembourg income?


title: Case C-465/06: Action brought on 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/47

         Action brought on 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-465/06)
   (2006/C 326/95)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and R. Vidal Puig, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2003/98/EC expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 345 of 31.12.2003, p. 90.


title: Case C-82/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/17

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-82/05)
   (2005/C 93/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by equating the process of final baking or reheating of ‘bake-off’ products with the full bread-making process and making it subject to the requirements of the legislation relating to bread-making, the Hellenic Republic introduces barriers to the import from other Member States and marketing in Greece of ‘bake-off’ products and infringes its obligations under Article 28 of the EC Treaty;

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Following a complaint, the Commission was informed that, in the absence of specific legislation relating to bread and bakery products which are either semi-baked or fully baked and frozen, the ‘bake-off’ method is regarded by the Greek authorities as a full process for the preparation and baking of bread. The Greek authorities accordingly permit the short final baking or the reheating of the products in question at the point of sale only if the latter meets all the specifications that are required for bakeries, despite the fact that the ‘bake-off’ method comprises only the short final baking of semi-baked bread or the reheating of frozen fully-baked bread, and none of the previous stages of preparation and baking. Therefore, ‘bake-off’ products can be placed on the Greek market either by points of sale which meet the specifications for bakeries, after being baked to completion or reheated, or by general food stores as semi-baked or frozen bakery products to be baked or reheated later by the consumer. In both cases, in the Commission's view, ‘bake-off’ products are accordingly rendered less attractive for the consumer compared with other baked bakery products.

               2.

               The Commission considers that the manner in which the Greek authorities interpret and apply the legislation in force effectively leads to a prohibition on the sale in general food stores (supermarkets) of ‘bake-off’ products that have been baked to completion or reheated, since ‘bake-off’ products are – mistakenly – regarded by the Greek authorities as subject to the enhanced requirements which generally apply to the preparation and baking of complete baked bread and bakery products.

               3.

               According to the Commission, since the short final baking or the reheating outside a bakery is the specific characteristic that distinguishes ‘bake-off’ products from other bakery products, the application of the Greek legislation on bread-making to ‘bake-off’ products cannot be considered a matter relating to selling arrangements for the purpose of the judgment in Keck and Mithouard and therefore falls within the scope of Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

               4.

               The Commission also submits that most of the conditions that are imposed on the ‘bake-off’ method are clearly unjustified and disproportionate, since that method consists only in the short final baking or the reheating of semi-baked or fully-baked frozen bread or bakery products. In addition, the Commission considers that those conditions are exceptionally burdensome for all general stores called on to meet the specifications for bakeries.

               5.

               The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic is infringing its obligations under Article 28 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-355/99: Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 352/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
     ensure a correct transposition of the notion ‘experiment’            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
     as defined in Article 2 of Directive 86/609/EEC (1) and to           a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct                  upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
     transposition of Articles 11 and 12 of Directive                     on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
     86/609/EEC concerning the approximation of the laws,                 laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
     States regarding the protection of animals used for exper-           to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
     imental and other scientific purposes and in failing to have         the Commission.
     an adequate system of penalties for non-compliance with
     the requirements of Directive 86/609/EEC, Ireland has                (1) Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
     failed to comply with Directive 86/609/EEC and in particu-               of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the
     lar Article 25 thereof and with its obligations under the                Member States relating to measures against the emission of
     Treaty and in particular Article 10 thereof                              gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion
                                                                              engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ L 59 of
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             27.2.1998, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Irish legislation fails to
achieve a correct transposal of directive 86/609/EEC because
it covered a narrower range of experiments than the directive,
because of a lack of coherence between the old and new                    Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Italian
provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, because of a                      Republic against Council of the European Union
failure to specify who or what is covered by certain key
concepts, because of a failure to establish procedures, and
because of inadequate penalty provisions.                                                           (Case C-357/99)
(1) Council Directive of 24 November 1986, on the approximation                                     (1999/C 352/41)
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
    States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental
    and other scientific purposes, OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice on 23 September 1999 by
                                                                          the Italian Republic, represented by its Agent Professor
                                                                          Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello
                                                                          Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
                                                                          Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaide.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                          — Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1404/99 (1) in
                                                                               so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for
                          (Case C-355/99)                                      white sugar for all areas of Italy for the sugar-marketing
                                                                               year 1999-2000, and also Article 1(2) of Council Regu-
                          (1999/C 352/40)                                      lation No 1403/99 (2) in so far as it fixes the intervention
                                                                               price for Italy as well;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999                  — Order the Council to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos             Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                         (1) The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic
                                                                               regulation, Regulation No 1785/81 (3), by fixing inter-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    vention prices in June 1999 whereas it should have done
                                                                               so before August 1998.
1. declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               (2) Regulation No 1404/99 gives no statement of reasons for
     comply fully with European Parliament and Council Direc-                  fixing the derived intervention price for five other Member
     tive 97/68/EC (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           States without doing so for Italy. Nor are any reasons given
     under that Directive, and                                                 in Regulation No 1403/99 regarding the fixing of the
                                                                               intervention price. The contested regulations are therefore
2. order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             vitiated by the lack of any statement of reasons.


title: Case C-386/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeits- und Sozialgerichts Wien by decision of that Court of 22 October 2002 in the proceedings between Josef Baldinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

text:
11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/13
(c)    colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s            3.    were outside the territory of the Republic of Austria as a
       secretariat?                                                            result of political persecution or the threat of political
                                                                               persecution and were taken into custody for political or
                                                                               military reasons by a foreign power and detained after
                                                                               the start of the Second World War,
Question 5
                                                                         is to be conditional on such persons holding Austrian national-
What bearing on the answers to Questions 1 to 4 has the fact             ity at the time of application?
that the inside information which is disclosed is
(a)    information on the commencement of merger nego-
       tiations between two companies quoted on the stock
       exchange;
(b)    information on the date of merger of two companies
       quoted on the stock exchange; or                                  Action brought on 4 November 2002 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
(c)    information on the level of the rise in the value of shares
       in a company quoted on the stock exchange which is                                           (Case C-388/02)
       anticipated by reason of the fact that the company is to
       merge with another quoted company?
                                                                                (2003/C 7/23)
( 1) Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinat-
     ing regulations on insider dealing (OJ L 334 of 18.11.1989,
     p. 30).                                                             An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 November 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Maria Patakia and Karen Banks, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeits- und                   The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Sozialgerichts Wien by decision of that Court of 22 Octo-
ber 2002 in the proceedings between Josef Baldinger and                  1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
           Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                               the Council of 7 June 1999 on the establishment of a
                          (Case C-386/02)
                                                                               mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect
                                                                               of the professional activities covered by the Directives on
                           (2003/C 7/22)                                       liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-
                                                                               plementing the general systems for the recognition of
                                                                               qualifications ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
                                                                               cate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         its obligations under the Directive;
European Communities by decision of the Arbeits- und
Sozialgerichts Wien (Labour and Social Court Vienna) of
                                                                         2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
22 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 28 October
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Josef Baldinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
(Pension Insurance Scheme for Workers) on the following
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
questions:
Is Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty, on the free movement of               Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
workers, to be interpreted as precluding a national rule which           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
provides that entitlement to financial compensation first                implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
legislated for in the year 2000 for persons who                          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
                                                                         expired on 31 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
1.     became prisoners of war in the course of the First or             provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
       Second World War; or                                              in the conclusions of the Commission.
2.     were taken into custody and detained by a foreign power
       for political or military reasons in the course of the            (1 ) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
       Second World War or during the period when Austria
       was occupied by the allied forces; or


title: Case F-63/11 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2014  — Luigi Macchia v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Non-renewal of a contract for a fixed period — Discretionary power of the administration — Manifest error of assessment — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2014 — Luigi Macchia v Commission
   (Case F-63/11 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Non-renewal of a contract for a fixed period - Discretionary power of the administration - Manifest error of assessment - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 034/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Macchia (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Annulment of the implied decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2)

               Mr Macchia is to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F-63/11, T-368/12 P and F-63/11 RENV respectively and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Cases F-63/11 and F-63/11 RENV.

               3)

               The European Commission is to bear its own costs incurred in Case T-368/12 P.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011, p. 32.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-165/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/52)

      (Language of the case: English)

   By order of 2 March 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-165/04 Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case F-102/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/27

         Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-102/11)
   2012/C 126/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision by which the Commission refused to pay to the applicant travelling expenses from the place of his employment to his place of origin for the period 2005 to 2010.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision refusing the applicant’s claims set out in his complaint of 13 August 2010, whatever the form in which the decision was adopted and irrespective of whether the refusal was total or partial;

               —

               annul, quatenus opus est, the Note of 22 December 2010 bearing reference PMO.1/NS/AV D(2010) 986451;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s claims set out in the complaint of 25 February 2011, whatever the form in which the decision was adopted;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-8/08: Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Piccoli v OHIM (Representation of a shell)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/57

         Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Piccoli v OHIM (Representation of a shell)
   (Case T-8/08)
   (2008/C 64/91)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: G.M. Piccoli Srl (Alzano Lombardo, Italy) (represented by S. Giudici, 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 or vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 28 September 2007, notified on 23 October 2007, to allow the registration of Community three-dimensional trade mark No 4522892 consisting in the stylised shape of a (scallop) shell, also to distinguish ‘brioches, brioches filled with creams or custards, jams, chocolate or honey’;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark representing a shell from four different perspectives (Registration Application No 4.522.892 for goods in Class 30).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration in respect of ‘preparations made from cereals, pastry, confectionery and ices’.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, as well as misconstruction of a number of provisions of Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. It is asserted, in that regard, that both Article 2 of Directive 89/104/EEC and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 acknowledge, expressly and unambiguously, the intrinsic distinctiveness, not only of the packaging of goods, but also of the very shape of those goods.


title: Case T-732/15: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/56

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission
   (Case T-732/15) (1)

   (2017/C 006/71)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case C-540/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2016 — UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2016 — UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

   (Case C-540/16)
   (2017/C 006/36)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’

      Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

      Other parties: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, BUAB ‘Sedija’, UAB ‘Starkis’, UAB ‘Baltijos šprotai’, UAB ‘Ramsun’, AB ‘Laivitė’, UAB ‘Baltlanta’, UAB ‘Strimelė’, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, UAB ‘Banginis’, UAB ‘Monistico’, UAB ‘Rikneda’, UAB ‘Baltijos jūra’, UAB ‘Grinvita’, BUAB ‘Baltijos žuvys’

      Question referred

   Are Articles 17 and 2(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, in the light of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State exercises the discretion provided for in Article 16(6), it is prohibited from choosing a method of allocation of the fishing quotas allocated to it which causes unequal conditions of competition for economic operators engaging in activity in this field on account of a greater quantity of fishing opportunities, even if that method is based on a transparent and objective criterion?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22.


title: Case T-262/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Canon Communications v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (MEDTEC) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Canon Communications v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (MEDTEC)
   (Case T-262/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 69/88)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: M. Mak and E. Zietse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2008 (Case R 817/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Messe Düsseldorf GmbH and Canon Communications LLC.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-202/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2008 — CLL Centres de Langues v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Rejection of application to participate — Application for suspension of operation and interim measures — No prima facie case — Loss of opportunity — No serious and irreparable damage — No urgency)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/12

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2008 — CLL Centres de Langues v Commission
   (Case T-202/08 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Rejection of application to participate - Application for suspension of operation and interim measures - No prima facie case - Loss of opportunity - No serious and irreparable damage - No urgency)
   (2008/C 247/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Centre de langues à Louvain-la-Neuve et -en-Woluwe (CLL Centres de Langues) (Louvain-la-neuve, Belgium) (represented by: F. Tulkens and V. Ost, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, agents and by P. Wytinck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures, essentially to permit the Centre de langues à Louvain-la-Neuve et -en-Woluwe (CLL Centres de Langues) to participate in the tendering procedure ADMIN/D1/PR/2008/004 regarding the contract ‘Language training for staff at the European Union (EU) institutions, bodies and agencies in Brussels’ and to suspend the Commission's decision to exclude it until the Court has ruled on the action for annulment of that decision.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2002 in Case C-69/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Paix, Luxembourg): Tilly Reichling v Léon Wampach (Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — National courts which may request the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
24.8.2002                EN                          Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 202/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                      26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
                                                                             the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and the
                                                                             Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the
                           (First Chamber)                                   Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
                                                                             of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
                          of 22 March 2002
                                                                             and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has made an order the
in Case C-69/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     operative part of which is as follows:
the Tribunal de Paix, Luxembourg): Tilly Reichling v Léon
                             Wampach (1)                                     The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no
                                                                             jurisdiction to reply to the question referred to it by the Tribunal de
                                                                             Paix, Luxembourg, by judgment of 28 February 2002.
(Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpret-
ation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — National
courts which may request the Court of Justice to give                        (1) OJ 2002 C 118.
preliminary rulings — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the
                                Court)
                           (2002/C 202/01)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 by Dansk Rørindustri
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       A/S against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002 by
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-21/99 (1) Dansk Rørindustri
                                                                                A/S v Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-69/02: reference to the Court from the Tribunal de                                           (Case C-189/02 P)
Paix (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Tilly Reichling and Léon                                              (2002/C 202/02)
Wampach, intervener: Établissement d’assurances contre la
vieillesse et l’invalidité — on the interpretation of the Brussels
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ                 An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
1972 L 299, 32), as amended by the Convention of Accession                   European Communities on 21 May 2002 by Dansk Rørindustri
of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland                      A/S, represented by K. Dyekjær-Hansen, K. Høegh and
and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                      C.K. Lauridsen, against the judgment delivered on 20 March
Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 — amended text — p. 77), the                    2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the                        nities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-21/99 Dansk Rørindustri
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Convention of                   A/S v Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case T-360/10: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK) (Community trade mark — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Out of time — No unforeseeable circumstances — No force majeure — Right of access to a court — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/34

         Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK)
   (Case T-360/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Period allowed for bringing proceedings - Out of time - No unforeseeable circumstances - No force majeure - Right of access to a court - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 366/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecnimed Srl (Vedano Olona, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi and V. Piccarreta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ecobrands Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2010 (Case R 1795/2008-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tecnimed Srl and Ecobrands Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tecnimed Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-508/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/51

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-508/13)
   2013/C 344/89
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               The Republic of Estonia considers that the following provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC:

                           1.

                           Article 4(6) and (8),

                           2.

                           Article 16(3), and

                           3.

                           Article 6(3)

                     are not consistent with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and asks the Court to annul them on the ground of breach of the Treaties or the rules implementing them. The Republic of Estonia considers that, when those provisions were adopted, the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU — an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU — was also infringed. The Republic of Estonia consequently asks the Court to annul the words ‘and the disclosure requirement is contained in the national tax legislation for the strict purposes of tax collection’ in Article 4(6), the words ‘required by national tax legislation’ and ‘as referred to in paragraph 6’ in Article 4(8), and Article 16(3) and Article 6(3) as a whole. Should the Court take the view that those provisions are not to be regarded as separate and cannot be severed from the remaining text of the directive without changing it, and that the annulment of those provisions may affect the general system of the directive, the Republic of Estonia asks the Court to annul the directive as a whole on the same grounds and for the same reasons;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Republic of Estonia brings an action for the annulment of certain provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (‘the Directive’) or alternatively of the Directive as a whole.

               2.

               The action is brought on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the words ‘and the disclosure requirement is contained in the national tax legislation for the strict purposes of tax collection’ in Article 4(6), the words ‘required by national tax legislation’ and ‘as referred to in paragraph 6’ in Article 4(8), and Article 16(3) and Article 6(3) as a whole, or alternatively of the Directive as a whole, on the ground of breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of the Treaties or rules implementing them.

               3.

               The breach of essential procedural requirements consists, in the opinion of the Republic of Estonia, in the failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU when adopting the Directive. The infringement of the Treaty or the rules implementing it consists, in the opinion of the Republic of Estonia, in a breach of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

               4.

               The Republic of Estonia submits that the maximum harmonisation measures in Article 4(6) in conjunction with Article 4(8) and Article 16(3) cannot strike an appropriate balance between the two objectives of the Directive — improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements and reducing the administrative burden on small and medium-sized undertakings. The measures adopted are not therefore appropriate for attaining the desired legitimate objective.

               5.

               An essential objective of the Directive — improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements — is not attainable by the measures adopted because proper regard was not had, when drawing up the draft of the Directive, to the structure of undertakings of the various Member States. As a result of transposing the Directive into the Member State’s legal system, 97.9 % of undertakings, accounting for more than half of the turnover achieved in the economy, would be freed from a substantial part of the requirements as to financial reporting — but that does not contribute to attaining the objective, extending to the whole European Union, of improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements.

               6.

               An essential objective of the Directive — reducing the administrative burden — is not attainable by the measures adopted because, when drawing up the draft of the Directive, account was not taken of the reduction of the administrative burden already achieved in the Member State by means other than reducing the extent of financial reporting; also because the information hitherto obtained from undertakings in the context of financial reporting, the requiring of which in that form would have to be discontinued in future because of the rule in Article 4(6), is, as previously, necessary information both for the private undertakings themselves and for the public sector. Additional information would therefore in future have to be collected and published through other channels — the administrative burden will thereby be relocated and may also increase.

               7.

               The principle of the priority of substance laid down in Article 6(1)(h) of the Directive is an important principle of the Directive. If it is possible for the Member States to abandon the principle of the priority of substance in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Directive and that possibility is made use of when transposing the provisions of the Directive into the national law of the Member State, then it is in principle not possible to attain the objective of improving the comparability, clarity and public confidence of financial statements extending to the whole European Union. Consequently, the measure adopted is not consistent with the principle of proportionality.

               8.

               In view of the fact that the result of adopting the measures in Article 4(6) and (8) and Article 16(3) of the Directive is not necessarily a Union-wide improvement of the clarity and comparability of financial statements and the measures adopted may also lead to a relocation instead of a reduction of the administrative burden in a Member State, the measures adopted do not make it possible better to attain the objectives of the Directive at European Union level. Those provisions are not therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 182, p. 19.


title: Case T-151/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/20

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission
   (Case T-151/15)
   (2015/C 190/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               declare that the applicant is only liable of the amount of 5  638,22 EUR;

               —

               condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 20 December 2005 on the project for European Action for Global Life science — Food Forum with reference LSSP-CT-2005-512135 (‘the Contract’), and claims to be declared liable of the amount of 5  638,22 EUR against the 86  676,42 EUR requested by the European Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the debit note issued by the European Commission is based in the conclusions of the final audit report but that the appraisal carried out by the European Commission’s auditors for issuing this report was incorrect with respect to several costs, namely personnel costs and costs related to certain events. Therefore, the European Commission issued a debit note based on incorrect assumptions and failed to prove facts to support its allegations, resulting in an infringement of article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code and, consequently, in a contractual infraction.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as of Article 1347 of the Belgian Civil Code as the European Commission unjustly concluded that costs related to the work of certain members of the personnel were ineligible because those members did not have a valid employment contract with the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward, amongst others, that it did not get the chance to defend itself by explaining to the European Commission any misunderstanding or minor mistake incurred by it in the performance of the Contract, that the enormous financial gap between the first draft audit report and the final audit report demonstrates a clear lack of correctness and prudency and that the several miscalculations and inaccuracies in figures throughout the whole final audit report have caused the applicant a struggle to properly understand the accusations made by the European Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission at refusing to reimburse some costs.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the European Commission accepted the fact that the applicant was assisted by another legal entity and therefore created the legal expectation that the costs derived from this relationship would be perfectly eligible.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of clarity in the rules applicable to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP6’).

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that according to Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, should uncertainty arise, an agreement is to be interpreted against he who stipulated it and in favor of he who contracted the obligation. The contractual rules applicable to FP6 result from ‘standard’ clauses established by the European Commission, to which the applicant had no other possibility but to adhere, making it the party who contracted the obligation. This situation, together with the fact that they pose evident problems of interpretation, as illustrated by the high numbers of appeals before the General Court questioning them, justifies that the uncertainty must benefit the applicant. The interpretation rule of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code makes it possible for the judge to construe the badly drafted or ambiguous provisions against their author, being the Commission.