title: Case C-388/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/16

         Action brought on 13 July 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-388/16)
   (2016/C 314/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU, in that it has not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 December 2014 in Case C-576/13, (1)
                  Commission v Spain, relating to the failure by the Kingdom of Spain to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 134 107,2 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-576/13, from the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered until the date on which the judgment in Case C-576/13 is fully complied with.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 27 522 by the number of days on which the infringement continues from the date on which the judgment in Case C-576/13 was delivered until:

               —

               the date on which the Kingdom of Spain adopts the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-576/13, if the Court holds that that adoption has taken place before judgment in this case is delivered,

               —

               the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered, if the judgment in Case C-576/13 has not been fully complied with by that date.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Kingdom of Spain has not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 December 2014 in Case C-576/13, Commission v Spain.

      (1)  EU: C: 2014: 2430


title: Case C-75/02 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against the order delivered on 11 January 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-77/01 between Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Appeal brought on 6 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico                       does not justify that, on the raising of an objection of
de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against                      inadmissibility, locus standi based on the EC Treaty
the order delivered on 11 January 2002 by the Third                           should be ruled out and the action dismissed as inadmis-
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                        sible.
Communities in Case T-77/01 between Territorio His-
tórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others
      and Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-75/02 P)                                 —    The order under appeal places a literal, restrictive and
                                                                              incorrect construction on the second paragraph of
                                                                              Article 33 CA: the reason the second paragraph of
                        (2002/C 109/61)                                       Article 33 CA refers to undertakings and associations of
                                                                              undertakings is that the authors of the Treaty assumed
                                                                              that acts based on the ECSC Treaty could only affect coal
                                                                              or steel producers or associations thereof, without that
                                                                              implying a desire to exclude other persons finding
An appeal against the order delivered on 11 January 2002 by
                                                                              themselves in a situation similar to that of an undertaking
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              to which aid is granted under a Commission decision.
European Communities in Case T-77/01 between Territorio
                                                                              Regional or territorial authorities which adopt a measure
Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others
                                                                              classified as aid by a Commission decision are in a
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                              situation similar to that of the recipient of aid.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
6 March 2002 by (1) Territorio Histórico de Alava —
Diputación Foral de Alava, (2) Territorio Histórico de Bizcaia
— Diputación Foral de Bizcaia, (3) Territorio Histórico de
Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa and Juntas Gen-
erales de Gipuzkoa and (4) Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s
Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, represented by Ramón Falcón y                  —    The finding of inadmissibility runs counter to the prin-
Tella, abogado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    ciple of effective legal protection, a defect which cannot
                                                                              be remedied by granting an application for leave to
                                                                              intervene in a parallel action before the Court of Justice:
                                                                              the standing of the Member State, in broad terms, as
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                   institutional or privileged party, does not suffice to afford
                                                                              effective legal protection of the interests of regional or
                                                                              territorial authorities which adopt a measure classified as
1.    set aside the order;                                                    aid, since those interests are different from the interests
                                                                              of the State. The appellants do not seek to equate the
                                                                              position of territorial authorities with tax-raising powers
2.    declare admissible the action brought before the Court of               with the position of the Member States, as privileged or
      First Instance (Case T-77/01) and order the Court of First              institutional parties; however, they do seek to obtain
      Instance to give a judgment on the substance, without                   recognition of the possibility that such territorial auth-
      prejudice to the possibility of staying proceedings pending             orities may have a remedy, at least as effective as that
      judgment by the Court of Justice in C-501/00 Spain v                    afforded to undertakings, where the tax-raising powers
      Commission;                                                             are affected by a Commission decision. In the present
                                                                              case, although the Court of Justice granted the application
3.    order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings in                 for leave to intervene submitted by the Basque Diputa-
      the appeal and at first instance.                                       ciones Forales in the action brought by the State
                                                                              (C-501/00), the fact remains that the State might not
                                                                              have brought proceedings, or might have brought pro-
                                                                              ceedings for a different purpose or based on different
                                                                              arguments to those which the present appellants consider
                                                                              appropriate. Moreover, the State could yet withdraw from
Pleas and main arguments                                                      Case C-501/00, which would leave the present appellants
                                                                              defenceless.
—     The order under appeal should have held admissible the
      action brought under Article 230 EC, even if in order to
      do so it first had to examine provisionally some of the
      matters of substance: locus standi cannot be ruled out for
      the mere fact that the Commission erroneously based on
      the ECSC Treaty a decision which should have been based
      on the EC Treaty (or on both simultaneously). It is true
      that the question whether, in the present case, the
      decision should have been based on the EC Treaty or on
      the ECSC Treaty is a matter of substance. However, that


title: Case T-319/17: Action brought on 22 May 2017 –Aldridge and Others v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/33

         Action brought on 22 May 2017 –Aldridge and Others v Commission
   (Case T-319/17)
   (2017/C 249/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Adam Aldridge (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and 32 other applicants (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         and consequently:

               —

               annul the decision of 15 July 2016 rejecting the request for reclassification of 16 March 2016;

               —

               annul the decision of 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint of 14 October 2016;

               —

               order payment of compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm incurred by the applicants;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, based on a plea of illegality directed against the decision of the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 16 October 2012 to implement only a one-off reclassification for temporary agents with contracts of indeterminate duration.
               The applicants consider that that decision is unlawful in that its adoption infringed Articles 10(3) and 15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’), contrary to the hierarchy of norms and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Thus, the decision of the Director of OLAF of 15 July 2016 rejecting the request for reclassification of 16 March 2016 and that of 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint of 14 October 2016 (‘the contested decisions’) were, they submit, adopted on the basis of an unlawful decision and should therefore be annulled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, principally in that the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union of 2014 and the provisions restricting career development prospects beyond grades AD 12 and AST 9 are not a valid reason to exclude those temporary agents from the organisation of reclassification procedures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as the contested decisions are contrary to a Commission decision, addressed to the European Union agencies, providing for the participation of temporary agents in reclassification procedures. Thus, temporary agents of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (‘JRC’) having contracts of indeterminate duration benefit from a system of annual reclassification, which the applicants claim constitutes an unjustified difference in treatment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in particular in that the restriction to a single reclassification during a career does not amount to a measure addressing the objective described in the decision of 16 October 2016 to meet the specific expertise needs of OLAF, but is, on the contrary, rather such as to prevent OLAF from keeping temporary agents in its employment over long periods.


title: Case T-300/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring OHG v OHIM (combination of the colours ochre yellow and silver grey)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/28

         Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring OHG v OHIM (combination of the colours ochre yellow and silver grey)
   (Case T-300/09)
   2009/C 256/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gühring OHG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1329/2008-1;

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant’s Examination Division dated 22 July 2008, in which it refused registration of the applicant’s mark Nr. 6 703 565;

               —

               Declare, that the trade mark applied for No. 6 703 565 complies with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1);
               in the alternative,

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1329/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: a mark made up of the combination of the colours of ochre yellow and silver grey for goods in Class 7 (registration application No. 6 703 565)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 because the trade mark applied for has a distinctive character. In addition, infringement of procedural law, in particular of Articles 75 and 76 (1) of Regulation No 207/2009

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case C-319/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2010 — X v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Y

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2010 — X v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Y
   (Case C-319/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/45
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Y

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the assessment of the validity and/or the interpretation of Regulations No 535/94, (1) No 1832/2002, (2) No 1871/2003 (3) and No 2344/2003, (4) by which additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 was introduced (numbered as note 8 at the time) and amended, is it possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) [of the World Trade Organisation] concerning the interpretation of the term ‘salted’ in heading 0210, even in cases in which the declaration for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ was made before that date?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               How is it to be determined whether the character of chicken meat has been altered?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Having regard to the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, are the aforementioned regulations valid in so far as they lay down that, for the purposes of heading 0210, meat is deemed to be ‘salted’ if it has a total salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more?

                           (b)

                           In the light of the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as meaning that additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 lays down that the character of meat with a salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more is deemed to have been altered, that that meat qualifies as ‘salted’ for the purposes of heading 0210, and that meat with a salt content by weight of less than 1,2 %, the character of which has been demonstrably altered through the addition of salt, is not excluded from classification under heading 0210?

               4.

               If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:
               How is it to be determined whether the long-term preservation of chicken meat is guaranteed through the addition of salt?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38).


title: Case C-49/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-49/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 328/13
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: N. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary as far as concerns permits for industrial installations, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-580/14: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission (Customs union — Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra — Fraud — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/29

         Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
   (Case T-580/14) (1)

   ((Customs union - Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra - Fraud - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 191/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: I. Toda Jiménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 2376 final of 15 April 2014, finding in a particular case that remission of import duties was not justified (REM 02/2012).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL is ordered to pay one third of the costs of the European Commission and its own costs.

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-571/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — External transit procedure — Goods transported through a free port located in a Member State — Legislation of that Member State excluding free ports from its national fiscal territory — Removal from customs supervision — Incurrence of a customs debt and chargeability of VAT)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen
   (Case C-571/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - External transit procedure - Goods transported through a free port located in a Member State - Legislation of that Member State excluding free ports from its national fiscal territory - Removal from customs supervision - Incurrence of a customs debt and chargeability of VAT))
   (2017/C 249/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 61 and the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to ‘one of the arrangements or situations referred to’ in Article 156 of that directive includes free zones.

               2.

               Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the removal of goods from customs supervision in a free zone does not give rise to the chargeable event or make import value added tax chargeable if those goods did not enter the economic network of the European Union, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

               3.

               The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a customs debt arises by virtue of Article 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, and no value added tax debt is consequently incurred, on account of the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, Article 204 of the latter regulation may not be applied for the sole purpose of providing a basis for charging value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case C-354/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2011 by Maurice Emram against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2011 in Case T-187/10 Emram v OHIM

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/7

         Appeal brought on 6 July 2011 by Maurice Emram against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2011 in Case T-187/10 Emram v OHIM
   (Case C-354/11 P)
   2011/C 282/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Maurice Emram (represented by: M. Benavï, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Guccio Gucci Spa

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the entire judgment of the General Court in that it dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of 11 February 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, and order the company Gucci to pay the costs of the proceedings before OHIM and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that there has been infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, (1) and also infringement of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (2)

   The appellant submits in that regard, first, that the General Court found that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking into account all the relevant aspects of the present case, including the non-use of earlier marks on the market, the taking into account of the distinctive character of the earlier marks, the actual presence on the market of other products of the same type bearing different ‘G’ signs, and the level of importance accorded by the relevant public to that type of sign to identify a commercial mark. The appellant further submits that the General Court found that there had been an incorrect assessment of the similarity between the conflicting marks resulting, inter alia, from a distortion of the facts, an incorrect assessment of the distinctive and dominant character of the earlier marks and an incorrect assessment of the nature of the products at issue.
   The appellant submits, second, that there was an incorrect application of the case-law by the General Court, in that it failed to take account of earlier national decisions, in disregard of Article 17 of Regulation No 207/2009.
   Lastly, the appellant submits that there has been infringement of the principle of equal treatment by the General Court in that it conducted a partial assessment of the similarity between the signs, whilst ignoring the word content of the mark applied for and comparing the signs on the basis of excessively broad criteria.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case F-8/15: Action brought on 23 January 2015  — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/48

         Action brought on 23 January 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-8/15)
   (2015/C 089/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions determining the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicants’ salary statement for the month of June 2014 in so far as they apply, for the first time, Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 January 2014, in order to determine the reimbursement of their travel expenses;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annul the standard decisions dated 15 October 2014 rejecting their claim;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-87/06: Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Manté v Council

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/19

         Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Manté v Council
   (Case F-87/06)
   (2006/C 237/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Thierry Manté (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of 22 August 2005 refusing to grant the applicant the installation allowance and ordering its recovery;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation for material damage suffered, an amount equivalent to the sums relating to the installation allowance which will have been recovered at the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, increased by the interest rate in force at that date;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of 1 euro, as compensation for pain and suffering;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant arrived in Brussels in 2004 as a national expert on secondment at the Council, and subsequently became an official at the same institution. The Council, after having granted him the installation allowance, decided that he was not entitled to it and ordered its recovery.
   In support of his action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

               —

               first, breach of his right to the installation allowance arising from the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Annexe VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               secondly, breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons arising from Articles 20(2) and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               thirdly, breach of the conditions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in so far as they relate to recovery of the installation allowance by the administration.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova by order of that court of 18 December 1998 in the case of Kofisa Italia Srl against Ministero delle Finanze and against Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi - San Paolo Riscossione Genova SpA (Case C-1/99)

text:
C 71/16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     products may be used for purposes other than                     Genova (Genoa District Court) of 18 December 1998,
     application to the human body and, consequently, may             which was received at the Court Registry on 4 January
     be prepared specifically for such uses; Article 6(2)             1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kofisa Italia
     requires Member States to take all measures necessary            Srl against Ministero delle Finanze and against Servizio
     to ensure that the labelling and presentation of                 della Riscossione dei Tributi Ð San Paolo Riscossione
     cosmetic products do not suggest that those products             Genova SpA on the following questions:
     possess characteristics Ð and, therefore, applications
     Ð which they do not. Thus, contrary to what is stated
     in the contested decision, if a product is intended for          (a) May the appeal referred to in Article 243(2) of
     the cleansing of objects or places, it cannot be called a             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) be brought
     cosmetic; it falls instead into some other category of                directly before the judicial authority without referring
     goods, subject to other tax arrangements;                             the matter first to the customs authority?
Ð Since it manifestly does not distinguish between                    (b) Is the power to suspend the contested decision
     evasion, avoidance and abuse Ð defined in                             provided for in Article 244 of Regulation (EEC)
     Article 27(1) and (5) of Council Directive                            No 2913/92 conferred exclusively on the customs
     92/83/EEC (5), but equates all those concepts with                    authority or also on the judicial authority before
     evasion, it does not regard as abuse the attempt to                   which an appeal has been brought?
     benefit, without justification, from more favourable
     tax rules (an instance of which has already occurred in
                                                                      (1) OJ L 302, 19.2.1992, p. 1.
     Italy);
Ð In discarding any limits as to alcoholic content and
     therefore permitting the preparation of products which
     are substantially similar in terms of composition and
     potential applications from alcohol which has been
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
     completely denatured' Ð to be subject to rules which
                                                                      Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 May 1998 in the
     are less stringent than those laid down for such
                                                                         case of Döhler GmbH against Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
     alcohol Ð the decision authorises tax discrimination
     between products which lend themselves equally to                                         (Case C-2/99)
     evasion, and such discrimination has repercussions on
     market conditions and consequently on the                                                (1999/C 71/28)
     competitiveness of like products.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998 (OJ
    L 295, 4.11.1998, p. 43) denying authority to Italy to refuse     European Communities by order of the              Hessisches
    the grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise     Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hessen) (Seventh Senate) of
    duty under Council Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation       7 May 1998, received at the Court Registry on 5 January
    of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic       1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Döhler
    beverages.                                                        GmbH v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt on the following
(2) OJ L 51, 25.2.1980, p. 1.                                         questions:
(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169.
(4) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32.
(5) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
                                                                      1. Is the second sentence of Article 7(5) of Commission
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying
                                                                           down detailed rules for the control and payment of the
                                                                           production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors (1), in
                                                                           the version as amended by Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 165/89, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                           expression the party concerned' also includes the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     purchaser of a product CN 3505 10 50, who has for
Genova by order of that court of 18 December 1998 in                       his part undertaken to the manufacturer and/or
the case of Kofisa Italia Srl against Ministero delle Finanze              supplier of that product to use it exclusively for the
and against Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi Ð San                   manufacture of products other than those listed in
                 Paolo Riscossione Genova SpA                              Annex I?
                          (Case C-1/99)
                         (1999/C 71/27)                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                           (a) Does the required payment by the purchaser of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         105 % of the highest production refund applicable
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di                              to the product in question during the previous


title: Case T-370/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — CJ v ECDC (Appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — CJ v ECDC
   (Case T-370/15) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard))
   (2016/C 419/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38) so far as that appeal concerns Case F-159/12;

               2.

               Declares that CJ shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in the present proceedings, in so far as those costs relate to Case F-159/12;

               3.

               Sets aside points 3 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38);

               4.

               Refers the present case, in so far as it concerns Case F-161/12, to a chamber other than that which has ruled on the present appeal;

               5.

               Reserves the costs relating to the present proceedings in so far as they relate to Case F-161/12.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-578/12 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-39/10: El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Appeal brought on 6 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-39/10: El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-578/12 P)
   2013/C 46/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, abogada, J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the judgment of the General Court of 27th September, 2012 in case T-39/10 in its entirety.

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA.

               —

               Order Emilio Pucci International BV to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that there exists likelihood of confusion (article 8.1.b CTMR (1)) between the earlier trademarks ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ and ‘E. TUCCI’ and the contested CTM application ‘PUCCI’, in respect of all the designated products in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28, as it has proved genuine use of all its Spanish trademarks and there is one trademark (community trademark application No. 3679528) which is not subject to this obligation, and the signs in controversy are confusingly similar. In addition, the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) CTMR 2009 are also fulfilled in the present case, as the earlier registrations enjoy a reputation in Spain in respect of articles related to fashion and the use of a similar sign by a third party would be detrimental to, and take unfair advantage of, such reputation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case C-309/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Real Express SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office, MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Blue and red figurative mark containing the word element ‘real’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the black and white national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Real’ and ‘Real mark’ — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/8

      Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Real Express SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office, MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
      (Case C-309/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Blue and red figurative mark containing the word element ‘real’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the black and white national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Real’ and ‘Real mark’ - Rejection of the opposition))
      (2016/C 454/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Real Express SRL (represented by: C. Anitoae, avocată)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and D. Hanf, Agents), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, Rechtsanwälte)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Real Express SRL shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case T-687/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava/OHMI — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/83

         Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava/OHMI — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-687/15)
   (2016/C 048/91)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings the Board of Appeal before

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 816

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2757/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 816 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

               —

               order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-261/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 14 July 2009 — Extradition proceedings concerning Gaetano Mantello

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 14 July 2009 — Extradition proceedings concerning Gaetano Mantello
   (Case C-261/09)
   2009/C 220/50
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

      Party to the main proceedings

   Gaetano Mantello

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the existence of ‘the same acts’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) to be determined:

                           a)

                           according to the law of the issuing Member State,

                           b)

                           according to the law of the executing Member State, or

                           c)

                           according to an autonomous interpretation, based on the law of the European Union, of the phrase ‘the same acts’?

               2.

               Are acts consisting of the illicit importation of drugs ‘the same acts’, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, as membership of an organisation the purpose of which is illicit drugs trafficking, in so far as the investigating authorities had information and evidence, at the time at which sentence was passed in respect of such importation, which supported a strong suspicion of membership of such an organisation, but omitted for tactical reasons relating to their investigation to provide the relevant information and evidence to the court and to initiate criminal proceedings on that basis?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1


title: Case C-97/10, Case C-98/10, Case C-99/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France) lodged on 22 February 2010 — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Baba-Pom’

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France) lodged on 22 February 2010 — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Baba-Pom’
   ((Case C-97/10) - (Case C-98/10) - (Case C-99/10))
   2010/C 113/45
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (Landes)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

      Defendants: SARL Bourdil, SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie, SARL Baba-Pom’

      Question referred

   Does an extensive collective agreement granting an exclusive right to the management of a single scheme for the supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs (in this case, to AG2R Prévoyance) infringe the provisions of Article 82 of the EC Treaty where that agreement does not provide for and even expressly excludes any waiver of affiliation to that scheme (in so far as the Community competition rules do not obstruct the performance of the tasks assigned to AG2R Prévoyance, entrusted with the scheme)?


title: Case T-375/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)
   (Case T-375/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Crabbe, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Case R 1742/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INSTASITE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case C-397/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Itzehoe — Germany) — Raffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG v Gerhild Lukath (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — First Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of the Rome Convention — Articles 1 and 2(a) and (b) — National courts entitled to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/6

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Itzehoe — Germany) — Raffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG v Gerhild Lukath
   (Case C-397/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - First Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of the Rome Convention - Articles 1 and 2(a) and (b) - National courts entitled to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2016/C 136/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Itzehoe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG

      Defendant: Gerhild Lukath

      in the presence of: Rüdiger Boy, Boy Finanzberatung GbhH, Christian Maibaum, Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG, Frank Weber

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Landgericht Itzehoe (Regional Court, Itzehoe (Germany)) for a preliminary ruling by decision of 15 June 2015 in Case C-397/15.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-376/08 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/46

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-376/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               Declare the appeal well-founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul the order of 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-371/08 P.


title: Case C-316/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014  — Marc Hußock, Ute Hußock, Michelle Hußock, Florian Hußock v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marc Hußock, Ute Hußock, Michelle Hußock, Florian Hußock v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-316/14)
   2014/C 303/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marc Hußock, Ute Hußock, Michelle Hußock, Florian Hußock

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

      (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-550/15: Action brought on 23 September 2015 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/60

         Action brought on 23 September 2015 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-550/15)
   (2015/C 389/69)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvăo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119, (1) in so far it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 8 2 06  006,65 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with the Other Direct Aid — Ewe and Goats measure for the marketing years 2010, 2011 and 2012;

               2.

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law, alleging the following defects:

               A —

               As regards the 2009 and 2010 marketing years — Controls during the retention period

                           1.

                           misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 34(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 (2) as regards the concept of controls to be carried out ‘throughout the retention period’;

                           2.

                           infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity, on account of the Commission’s improper retroactive application of Article 2(10) of Regulation (EU) No 1368/2011, (3) in so far as it is only with the amendment of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1122/2009 (4) that EU legislation provided that on-the-spot checks are to be ‘spread throughout the entire retention period’;

                           3.

                           infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, in so far as those principles require that any measures adopted by the institutions which produce legal effects must be clear and precise and that the persons concerned be made aware of such measures so that they are able to discern with certainty when those measure begin to have legal effects;

                           4.

                           infringement of the principle of equality, given that the guidelines for the application of Article 34(2), in so far as such guidelines exist, must be in writing, failing which the principle of equality will be undermined, since there is no guarantee that measures will always be adopted in a uniform manner by all Member States in accordance with the principle of equality;

                           5.

                           infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 5 TEU, in so far as the on-the-spot checks carried out the Portuguese authorities attain exactly the objective set out in the provisions in question, irrespective of whether the checks are carried out at the beginning, as claimed by the Commission, in the middle, or closer to the end, provided they are carried out unannounced and unexpectedly during the retention period;

               B —

               As regards the 2011 marketing year — New regulatory electronic identification requirements

                           1.

                           infringement of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006, (5) in so far as adequate reasons are not given for the decision, the grounds for which are imprecise and, as such, the decision fails to have regard to the rationale and objective of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006;

                           2.

                           infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (6) and the principle of proportionality, given that, in the present case, the four requirements set out in the guidelines provided by the Commission on this subject are not fulfilled and in so far as those four requirements are cumulative.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1368/2011 of 21 December 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof, and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2011 L 341, p. 33).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

      (6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case F-86/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise that invalidity arose from an occupational disease)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/84

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-86/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise that invalidity arose from an occupational disease)
   2013/C 225/193
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert McCoy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (represented by: J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Application for the annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, concerning the refusal to recognise that Mr McCoy's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 42.


title: Case T-348/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal Veste e premia lo sport) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark Royal Veste e premia lo sport — Earlier Community and international word marks veste lo sport — Earlier unregistered figurative mark panzeri veste lo sport — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal Veste e premia lo sport)
   (Case T-348/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark Royal Veste e premia lo sport - Earlier Community and international word marks veste lo sport - Earlier unregistered figurative mark panzeri veste lo sport - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 184/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Panzeri (Monguzzo, Italy) (represented by: C. Galli, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Royal Trophy Srl (Cava de Tirreni, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 988/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Luigi Panzeri and Royal Trophy Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 988/2009-1);

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-182/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Aiscat v Commission (State aid — Direct concession for the construction and subsequent management of a section of motorway — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Action for annulment — Actionable measure — Locus standi — Individual concern — Admissibility — Definition of aid — State resources)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Aiscat v Commission
   (Case T-182/10) (1)

   (State aid - Direct concession for the construction and subsequent management of a section of motorway - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Locus standi - Individual concern - Admissibility - Definition of aid - State resources)
   2013/C 55/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Associazione italiana delle società concessionarie per la costruzione e l’esercizio di autostrade e trafori stradali (Aiscat) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Maresca, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Concessioni Autostradali Venete — CAV SpA (represented by: C. Malinconico and P. Clarizia, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 February 2010 rejecting a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Italian Republic to CAV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Associazione italiana delle società concessionarie per la costruzione e l’esercizio di autostrade e trafori stradali (Aiscat) to bear half of its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission and all of the costs incurred by Concessioni autostradali Venete — CAV SpA.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Aiscat.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-80/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 12 February 2016 — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 12 February 2016 — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie
   (Case C-80/16)
   (2016/C 136/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine

      Defendant: Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

      Questions referred

               1.

               In its Decision 2011/278/EU (1), did the European Commission, by excluding emissions from recycled waste gases used in the production of electricity from the benchmark value for hot metal, contravene Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) concerning the rules for establishing ex-ante benchmarks, and in particular the objective of efficient energy recovery of waste gases and the option of allocating allowances free of charge in the case of electricity produced from waste gases?

               2.

               By basing its determination of the benchmark for hot metal in that decision on the data in the iron and steel ‘BREF’ and the ‘LDSD 2007’, did the Commission infringe the obligation to use the most exact and up-to-date scientific data available and/or the principle of sound administration?

               3.

               In Decision 2011/278/EU, is the European Commission’s inclusion, if proven, of a factory producing both sintered ore and pellets in the reference installations for determining the benchmark for sintered ore such as to vitiate the value of that benchmark on grounds of illegality?

               4.

               Did the Commission, by failing to state specifically the reasons for proceeding in that way in Decision 2011/278/EU, infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

      (1)  Commission Decision 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 (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      (2)  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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-687/16 P: Appeal brought on 30 December 2016 by Capella EOOD against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 12 May 2016 in Case T-750/14, Ivo-Kermartin GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/16

         Appeal brought on 30 December 2016 by Capella EOOD against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 12 May 2016 in Case T-750/14, Ivo-Kermartin GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-687/16 P)
   (2017/C 249/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Capella EOOD (represented by: C. Pfitzer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 7 June 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-465/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 September 2010 — Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales v Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de l’Indre

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 September 2010 — Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales v Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de l’Indre
   (Case C-465/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/50
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales

      Defendant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie (CCI) de l’Indre

      Questions referred

               1.

               Concerning the existence of a legal basis creating an obligation to recover the aid paid to the CCI:
               Where an awarding authority that receives subsidies paid from the ERDF has failed to comply with one or more public procurement rules in the implementation of the subsidised project, when it is not otherwise disputed that that project is eligible for that fund and that it has been implemented, is there a provision of Community law, in particular in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (1) of 24 June 1988 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) of 19 December 1988, that creates an obligation to recover subsidies? If such an obligation exists does it apply to any failure to comply with the public procurement rules, or only to some of them? In the latter case, which?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is at least partly affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Does the failure, by an awarding authority entitled to aid from the ERDF, to observe one or more rules relating to public procurement for the choice of a service provider responsible for implementing the subsidised project constitute an irregularity within the meaning of Regulation No 2988/95 (3)? Does the fact that the competent national authority could not have been unaware, at the time when it decided to grant the aid applied for from the ERDF, that the recipient operator had failed to comply with the public procurement rules in recruiting, before the aid had even been allocated, the provider responsible for implementing the project financed by the authority affect the characterisation as an irregularity within the meaning of Regulation No 2988/95?

                           (b)

                           In case of an affirmative answer to question 2(a), and, given that, as the Court of Justice held in Joined Cases C-278/07 to C-280/07 Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Josef Vosding Schlacht, Kûhl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co [2009] ECR I-457, the limitation period referred to in Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 is applicable to administrative measures such as the recovery of aid wrongly received by an operator as a result of irregularities it committed:

                                       —

                                       Should the starting point for the limitation period be set at the date of payment of the aid to the recipient or at that of the recipient’s use of the subsidy received to pay the provider recruited in disregard of one or more of the public procurement rules?

                                       —

                                       Should that period be regarded as interrupted by the transmission, by the competent national authority to the recipient of the subsidy, of an auditor’s report finding that there was a failure to comply with the public procurement rules and recommending, as a result, that the national authority obtain repayment of the sums paid?

                                       —

                                       When a Member State makes use of the possibility afforded by Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 to apply a longer limitation period for proceedings, in particular where, in France, the ordinary limitation period at the time of the facts at issue is applicable, as set out at Article 2262 of the Code Civil which provides that ‘All actions, both in rem and in personam, are time-barred after 30 years …’, must the compatibility of such a limitation period with Community law, in particular with the principle of proportionality, be determined in the light of the maximum limitation period for proceedings according to the national legislation providing the legal basis for the national administration’s demand for recovery or in the light of the period in fact applied in the particular case?

                           (c)

                           In case of a negative answer to question 2(a), with regard to payment of aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings, do the financial interests of the Community prevent the judge from applying the national rules relating to the withdrawal of decisions creating rights, according to which, except in cases of non-existence, acquisition by fraud or the recipient’s request, the administration may withdraw an individual decision creating rights, if it is illegal, only within a period of four months following the date that decision was taken, an administrative decision being nonetheless capable, in particular when it concerns payment of aid, of being coupled with conditions subsequent, the fulfilment of which allows the withdrawal of the aid in question without any limitation condition — the Conseil d’État having held that that national rule must be interpreted to the effect that it could not be relied on by the recipient of an aid wrongly attributed in application of Community legislation unless it was in good faith?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their
   effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-417/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Figurative mark — Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging — Distinctive character)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-417/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Figurative mark - Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging - Distinctive character))
   (2017/C 213/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr and P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case C-195/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság lodged on 10 April 2007 — OTP Bank Rt. and Merlin Gerin Zala Kft. v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság lodged on 10 April 2007 — OTP Bank Rt. and Merlin Gerin Zala Kft. v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   (Case C-195/07)
   (2007/C 129/19)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Zala Megyei Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: OTP Bank Rt. and Merlin Gerin Zala Kft.

      Defendant: Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must point 3(a) of Chapter 4 of Annex X to the ‘Act of Accession’ (1) (the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded), which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, which provides that ‘Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local government for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of Act C of 1990 on Local Taxes’, be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           Hungary has been granted a temporary derogation which allows it to maintain local business tax, or that

                           —

                           by granting the possibility to maintain local business tax reductions, the Act of Accession also recognises that Hungary has the (provisional) right to maintain a tax on economic activities?

               (2)

               Should Question 1 be answered in the negative, the referring court also asks the following question:
               On a correct interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2), what are the criteria on which a tax may be considered not to be characterised as a turnover tax for the purposes of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.

      (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-338/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund
   (Case C-338/17)
   (2017/C 269/16)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

      Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 151 and 153 TFEU and Articles 3, 4, 11 and 12 of Directive 2008/94 (1) to be interpreted as permitting a national provision such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za Garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on the guaranteed claims of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency), under which persons whose employment was terminated prior to the three-month period provided for before registration of the decision initiating insolvency proceedings over the employer’s assets are excluded from the protection of unmet employment-related claims?

               2.

               If the first question is answered affirmatively, is the procedural autonomy of the Member States, in light of the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality in the context of the social objective underpinning Articles 151 und 153 TFEU and Directive 2008/94, to be construed as permitting a national measure, such as Article 25 of the Zakon za Garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia, which provides that, on expiry of a period of two months from the date of registration of the decision initiating insolvency proceedings, the rights to assert and obtain satisfaction of guaranteed claims are extinguished if the domestic law of the Member State contains a provision, such as Article 358 (1)(3) of the Kodeks na truda (Employment Code), under which the period for asserting unmet employment-related claims is three years from the date on which the claim ought to have been met and payments made after expiry of this period are not deemed to have been made without a legal basis?

               3.

               Is Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting such a distinction to be made, on the one hand, between employees with unmet claims whose employment was terminated before the three-month period before registration of the decision initiating insolvency proceedings over the employer’s assets and employees whose employment was terminated during the three-month period laid down and, on the other hand, between those employees and employees who, under Article 358 (1)(3) of the Kodeks na truda, are entitled on the termination of their employment to protection of their unmet claims during a period of three years commencing at the time when the claim ought to have been met?

               4.

               Is Article 4, read with Article 3, of Directive 2008/84 and with the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted as permitting a provision, such as Article 25 of the Zakon za Garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia, under which the rights to assert and to obtain satisfaction of guaranteed claims are automatically extinguished, without any possibility of an individual assessment of the relevant factors, on expiry of a two-month period from the date of registration of the decision initiating insolvency proceedings?

      (1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.


title: Case T-110/05: Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/31

         Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-110/05)
   (2005/C 115/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Giacomo Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2102/2004, insofar as it does not lay down exceptional measures to support the market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 with regard to chicks destroyed owing to the fact that breeding is impossible in areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary restrictions on circulation;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Government of the Italian Republic has challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Commission Regulation (EC) No 2102/2004 of 9 December 2004 on certain exceptional market support measures for eggs in Italy, (1) insofar as it does not lay down exceptional measures to support the market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 (2) with regard to chicks destroyed owing to the fact that breeding is impossible in areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary restrictions on circulation.
   In support of its claims, the Italian Republic has pleaded:

               1.

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination between producers within the Community laid down in the second paragraph of Article 34(2) EC since, exceptional market support measures having been granted to Italy only in respect of eggs, similar measures in respect of poultrymeat were refused, resulting in discrimination against Italian bird producers in relation to those in the Netherlands, thus infringing Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty;

               2.

               misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment by the Commission which, by refusing to adopt the exceptional market support measures also in respect of one-day-old chicks destroyed owing to the fact that they cannot breed, exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat and committed an error in assessing the situation on the Italian bird market and the data on the production structure at its disposal;

               3.

               infringement and incorrect interpretation of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75, since the Commission's unjustified refusal to grant the exceptional market support measures in respect of one-day-old chicks destroyed owing to the fact that breeding is impossible is the result of misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75.

         Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of the obligation to give reasons for measures.

      (1)  OJ L 365 of 10.12.2004, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 282 of 01.11.1975, p. 77.


title: Case C-185/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage lodged on 29 April 2008 — Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV and Consolidated Nederland BV

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage lodged on 29 April 2008 — Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV and Consolidated Nederland BV
   (Case C-185/08)
   (2008/C 197/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV

      Defendants: Kedge Safety Systems BV and Consolidated Nederland BV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do Class A 1 anchor devices within the meaning of European standard EN 795 (which are intended to remain in position permanently) fall exclusively within the scope of Directive 89/106/EEC (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, do these anchor devices — possibly, in that case, as an item of personal protective equipment — fall within the scope of Directive 89/686/EEC (2)?

               3.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, is it necessary, in the light of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC, in particular point 3.1.2.2 thereof, to assess whether personal protective equipment that is covered by that directive by itself fulfils the basic requirements of that directive, or is it necessary also to consider whether the anchor device to which the protective equipment concerned is connected is safe in the foreseeable conditions of use, as defined in Annex II?

               4.

               Does Community law and, in particular, [Decision] 93/465/EEC (3) allow for the option of applying a CE marking to an anchor device as referred to in Question 1 as evidence of compliance with Directive 89/686/EEC and/or Directive 89/106/EEC?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 is either wholly or partly in the affirmative, what procedure(s) should be followed in determining compliance in respect of Directive 89/686/EEC and/or Directive 89/106/EEC?

               6.

               Is European standard EN 795 to be regarded — in respect of anchor devices as referred to in Question 1 — as Community law to be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

               7.

               If the answer to Question 6 is in the affirmative, is European standard EN 795 to be interpreted as meaning that the anchor device referred to in Question 1 must be tested (by a Notified Body) under foreseeable conditions of use (such as external temperatures, weather conditions, ageing of the anchor device itself and/or of the materials by which it is attached, or the roof construction)?

               8.

               If the answer to Question 7 is in the affirmative, must the tests be carried out in accordance with user restrictions (referred to in the instructions for use)?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12).

      (2)  Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18).

      (3)  Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisation directives (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 23).


title: Case T-534/15: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty GT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/18

         Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty GT)
   (Case T-534/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1937/2014-2 and R 1564/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.