title: Case T-123/07: Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens Transmission & Distribution v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/31

         Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens Transmission & Distribution v Commission
   (Case T-123/07)
   (2007/C 140/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Siemens Transmission & Distribution (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and/or Article 53 of the EEA Agreement during the period from 15 April 1988 to 13 December 2000, 1 April 2002 to 9 October 2002, and 21 January 2004 to 11 May 2004;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as the applicant is affected;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2(l) of the decision to an amount not exceeding EUR 1 100 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear. In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a set of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-isolated switchgear sector.
   The applicant bases its application primarily on breach of Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and Article 25 of that regulation. In this connection it complains that the fine imposed on it exceeds 10 % of its turnover in the last trading year before the decision. Furthermore, the Commission did not take account of the individual circumstances of the applicant when setting the fine. In addition, the applicant asserts that the Commission incorrectly assessed the duration of the infringement by the applicant. For the period before 16 July 1998 the prosecution was moreover already out of time. Further, the Commission found without cogent proof that until 13 December 2000 the alleged infringement had as its purpose or effect a restriction of competition within the Community. Finally, it is submitted in connection with the first plea in law that the applicant was wrongly accused of having itself taken part in the agreements after 2002.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements. In this connection it complains of a breach of the right to be heard.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).


15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid for undertakings in the textile sector - Consequences of an annulling judgment for acts preparatory to the act annulled)

text:
19.12.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/15
European Union (Agent: Antonio Tanca) Ð application                  1. Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1522/                     14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws
96 of 24 July 1996 opening and providing for the                          of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice               employees' rights in the event of transfers of
and broken rice (OJ L 190, 31.7.1996, p. 1), in particular                undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be
Articles 3, 4 and 9 thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  interpreted as meaning that the directive applies where
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                  a company in voluntary liquidation transfers all or
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen                     part of its assets to another company from which the
and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General;                   worker then takes his orders which the company in
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November                  liquidation states are to be carried out.
1998, in which it:
                                                                     2. Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC does not
1. Dismisses the application;                                             preclude a worker employed by the transferor at the
                                                                          date of the transfer of an undertaking from objecting
                                                                          to the transfer of his contract of employment or
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          employment relationship to the transferee, provided he
                                                                          decides to do so of his own accord. It is for the
                                                                          national court to determine whether the contract of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                          employment proposed by the transferee involves a
                                                                          substantial change in working conditions to the
                                                                          detriment of the worker. If it does, Article 4(2) of the
                                                                          directive requires Member States to provide that the
                                                                          employer is to be considered responsible for the
                                                                          termination.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
                      (Second Chamber)
                    of 12 November 1998
in Case C-399/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): EuropieÁces SA, in
liquidation, v. Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries
                  Holding Company SA (1)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Social policy Ð Harmonisation of laws Ð Transfers of                                        (Sixth Chamber)
undertakings Ð Safeguarding of workers' rights Ð
Directive 77/187/EEC Ð Scope Ð Transfer of an                                             of 12 November 1998
            undertaking in voluntary liquidation)                    in Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
                        (98/C 397/24)                                                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (State aid for undertakings in the textile sector Ð
                                                                     Consequences of an annulling judgment for acts
               (Language of the case: French)                                       preparatory to the act annulled)
                                                                                (98/C 397/25)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-399/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                     published in the European Court Reports)
that court between EuropieÁces SA, in liquidation, and
Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries Holding
Company SA Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive              In Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez
77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of               de Ayala Becerril) v. Commission of the European
the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding           Communities (Agents: Francisco Santaolalla and Ramón
of employees' rights in the event of transfers of                    Vidal Puig) Ð application for annulment of Commission
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,            Decision 97/242/EC of 18 September 1996 amending
5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Second Chamber),                       Decision 92/317/EEC on State aid in favour of Hilaturas y
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F.              Tejidos Andaluces SA, now called MediterraÂneo TeÂcnica
Mancini (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; G.                    Textil SA, and its buyer (OJ L 96, 11.4.1997, p. 30) Ð
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch
a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has ruled:               (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R.                aim is to defend the collective interests of its members Ð
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November              whether they are workers, employers, independent
1998, in which it:                                                 professionals or traders carrying on a particular economic
                                                                   activity Ð and to represent them vis-aÁ-vis the appropriate
                                                                   third parties, including the public authorities.
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                   Action brought on 14 October 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                (Case C-367/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/27)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                    of 12 November 1998                            before the Court of Justice on 14 October 1998 by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
in Case C-149/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                   by António Caeiro, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
the VAT and Duties Tribunal): Institute of the Motor
                                                                   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Industry v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
                                                                   office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal
(VAT Ð Exemptions Ð Non-profit-making organisations                Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
             with aims of a trade-union nature)
                        (98/C 397/26)
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
               (Language of the case: English)                     Ð declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force Law
                                                                       No 11/90 of 5 April 1990, and in particular
                                                                       Article 13(3) thereof, the decree-laws privatising
                                                                       undertakings subsequently enacted in implementation
In Case C-149/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             thereof, and Decree-Law No 380/93 of 15 November
of the EC Treaty from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,                     1993 and Decree-Law No 65/94 of 28 February 1994,
London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
pending before that court between Institute of the Motor               obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular
Industry and Commissioners of Customs and Excise Ð on                  Articles 52, 56, 58, 73 et seq. (which superseded
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Sixth Council           Article 67 et seq. of the EC Treaty) and Article 221,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             and Articles 221 and 231 of the Act of Accession of
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                the Portuguese Republic; (1)
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1)
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F.              Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                   Ð By providing that foreign capital holdings in privatised
For the purposes of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Sixth Council             undertakings may not exceed a specified percentage,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             and including in that category holdings by Community
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                investors, the Portuguese legislation discriminates
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                  between national citizens and entities and those of
uniform basis of assessment, an organisation with aims of              other Member States, thereby infringing Articles 52 et
a trade-union nature means an organisation whose main                  seq. and 73 et seq. of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-321/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Cimino v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/36

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Cimino v Commission
   (Case T-321/08)
   (2008/C 272/69)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Riccardo Cimino (Castelsardo, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case C-122/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 March 2015 — C

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 March 2015 — C
   (Case C-122/15)
   (2015/C 171/26)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C

      Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are the provisions of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the provisions on supplementary tax on pension income of the first and fourth subparagraphs of Paragraph 124 of the Tuloverolaki (Law on income tax) fall within the scope of EU law and the provision concerning the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should consequently be applied in the present case?
               Questions 2 and 3 are submitted only in the event that the Court of Justice’s reply to Question 1 is that the matter falls within the scope of EU law.

               2)

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Article 2(1) and (2)(a) or (b) of Directive 2000/78/EC and the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as the provisions of the first and fourth subparagraphs of Paragraph 124 of the Tuloverolaki concerning the supplementary tax on pension income, under which the pension income received by a natural person, the receipt of which is based at least indirectly on the person’s age, is burdened in certain cases with more income tax than would be charged on the equivalent amount of employment income?

               3)

               If those provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude national legislation such as the supplementary tax on pension income, must it also be assessed in the present case whether Article 6(1) of that directive is to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the supplementary tax on pension income may nevertheless be regarded in terms of its aim as objectively and reasonably justified within the meaning of that provision of the directive, in particular on the basis of a legitimate employment policy, labour market or vocational training objective, since the purpose expressed in the preparatory materials for the Tuloverolaki is, by means of the supplementary tax on pension income, to collect tax revenue from recipients of pension income who are capable of paying, to narrow the difference of tax rates between pension income and employment income, and to improve incentives for older persons to continue working?

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2001 in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99: Jean-Claude Martinez and Others v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Act of the European Parliament concerning a provision of its Rules of Procedure — Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament — Admissibility — Objection of illegality — Equal treatment — Observance of fundamental rights — Principles of democracy and proportionality — Freedom of association — Protection of legitimate expectations — Parliamentary traditions of the Member States — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Misuse of procedure)

text:
C 17/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.1.2002
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             statement of formation of the ‘Groupe technique des députés
                                                                       indépendants (TDI) — Groupe mixte’, — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
                      of 2 October 2001                                of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger
                                                                       and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October 2001, in
in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99: Jean-                 which it:
  Claude Martinez and Others v European Parliament (1)
                                                                       1.    Ordered the joinder of Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and
                                                                             T-329/99 for the purposes of the judgment;
(Actions for annulment — Act of the European Parliament
concerning a provision of its Rules of Procedure — Statement
                                                                       2.    Dismissed the actions;
of formation of a group under Rule 29 of the Rules of
Procedure of the European Parliament — Admissibility —
Objection of illegality — Equal treatment — Observance                 3.    Ordered the applicants in each case to bear their own costs and
of fundamental rights — Principles of democracy and                          those incurred by the Parliament including, as regards Case
proportionality — Freedom of association — Protection of                     T-222/99, the costs relating to the application for interim
legitimate expectations — Parliamentary traditions of the                    measures.
Member States — Breach of essential procedural require-
                ments — Misuse of procedure)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999, C 47 of 19.2.2000 and C 63 of
                                                                           4.3.2000.
                        (2002/C 17/20)
            (Language of the case: French and Italian)
                                                                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
In Joined Cases T-222/99: Jean-Claude Martinez, Member of
the European Parliament, residing in Montpellier (France),
Charles de Gaulle, Member of the European Parliament,                                         of 5 September 2001
residing in Paris (France), represented by F. Wagner, lawyer,
applicants in Case T-327/99, Front national, established in
Saint-Cloud (France), represented by A. Nivière, lawyer, and           in Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH v Commission of
T-329/99, Emma Bonino, Member of the European Parliament,                                 the European Communities
residing in Rome (Italy), Marco Pannella, Member of the
European Parliament, residing in Rome, Marco Cappato,                  (Proceedings for interim relief — Article 108 of the Rules of
Member of the European Parliament, residing in Vedano al                   Procedure — Change in circumstances — No change)
Lambro (Italy), Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Member of the European
Parliament, residing in Leghorn (Italy), Benedetto Della Vedova,
Member of the European Parliament, residing in Tirano (Italy),                                   (2002/C 17/21)
Olivier Dupuis, Member of the European Parliament, residing
in Rome, Maurizio Turco, Member of the European Parliament,
residing in Pulsano (Italy), Lista Emma Bonino, established in                             (Language of the case: German)
Rome, represented initially by A. Tizzano and G. M. Roberti,
lawyers, and subsequently by G. M. Roberti, against European
Parliament (Agents: G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo, H. Krück
and A. Caiola) — application for the annulment in Case                 In Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH, established in Lüchow
T-222/99 of the European Parliament’s decision of 14 Septem-           (Germany), represented by U. Doepner, lawyer, with an
ber 1999 on the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of           address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
Procedure of the European Parliament; in Case T-327/99 of              European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägen-
the European Parliament’s decision of 14 September 1999                baur) — application by the defendant under Article 108 of the
dissolving with retroactive effect the ‘Groupe technique des           Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance for cancel-
députés indépendants (TDI) — Groupe mixte’; and in Case                lation of the order of the President of Court of First Instance
T-329/99 of the European Parliament’s decision of 14 Septem-           of 28 June 2000 in Case T-74/00 R Artegodan v Commission
ber 1999 in which it adopted the view taken by the Committee           [2000] ECR II-2583 — the President of the Court of First
on Constitutional Affairs on the conformity with Rule 29 of            Instance made an order on 5 September 2001, the operative
the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament of the               part of which is as follows:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 February 1999 in Case T-200/97: Carmen Jiménez v. Office for Harmonisation in the Intenal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Officials - Competitions - Inclusion on the list of suitable candidates - Procedural irregularity - Principle of non-discrimination - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
27.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 86/17
4. Orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     their own costs.                                                                     of 28 January 1999
                                                                      in Case T-264/97: D v. Council of the European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                     (Officials Ð Refusal to grant the applicant the household
                                                                                allowance in respect of his partner)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 11 February 1999
                                                                     In Case T-264/97: D, an official of the Council of the
in Case T-200/97: Carmen JimeÂnez v. Office for                      European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
Harmonisation in the Intenal Market (trade marks and                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and FrancËoise
                     designs) (OHIM) (1)                             Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
(Officials Ð Competitions Ð Inclusion on the list of                 30 Rue de Cessange, supported by the Kingdom of
suitable candidates Ð Procedural irregularity Ð Principle            Sweden (Agent: Lotti Nordling), v. Council of the
   of non-discrimination Ð Manifest error of assessment)             European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Eva
                        (1999/C 86/34)                               Karlsson) Ð application for annulment of the Council's
                                                                     decision refusing to grant the applicant the household
                                                                     allowance in respect of his partner Ð the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                       Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
                                                                     President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                     B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
In Case T-200/97: Carmen JimeÂnez, an official of the                given a judgment on 28 January 1999, in which it:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Alicante (Spain), represented by Georges Vandersanden, of
                                                                     1. Dismisses the action.
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v. Office for Harmonisation in the                  2. Orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                         their own costs.
(Agents: Fernando López de Rego and Antonio Grilli) Ð
application for annulment of the decision of the selection
board of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
Market (trade marks and designs) of 30 October 1996 not
to include the applicant's name on the list drawn up in the
context of the Competition for the drawing-up of a list of
suitable candidates of either sex to fill category C posts as
members of the temporary staff (reference AT/C)' Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A.
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                       of 10 February 1999
judgment on 11 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                     in Case T-35/98: AndreÂ Hecq and Syndicat des Fonction-
                                                                     naires Internationaux et EuropeÂens (SFIE) v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls the decision of the selection board of the
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 (Officials Ð Bureau of the local Staff Committee Ð
     (trade marks and designs) of 30 October 1996 not to                Elections Ð Duties of the institution Ð Admissibility)
     include the applicant's name on the list drawn up in
     the context of the Compettion for the drawing-up of                                    (1999/C 86/36)
     a list of suitable candidates of either sex to fill
     category C posts as members of the temporary staff                              (Language of the case: French)
     (reference AT/C)'.
                                                                     In Case T-35/98: AndreÂ Hecq, an official of the
2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) to pay the              Brussels, and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux
     costs.                                                          et EuropeÂens (SFIE), established in Brussels, represented
                                                                     by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.                                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
                                                                     Kremer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
                                                                     Julian Currall) Ð application for annulment of the


title: Case T-538/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Regent University v EUIPO — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark REGENT UNIVERSITY — Earlier national figurative mark REGENT’S COLLEGE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Regent University v EUIPO — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)
   (Case T-538/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark REGENT UNIVERSITY - Earlier national figurative mark REGENT’S COLLEGE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 151/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Regent University (Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States) (represented by: E. Himsworth QC and D. Wilkinson, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Regent’s College (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2015 (Case R 1859/2014-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Regent’s College and Regent University.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Regent University to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case T-330/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Novartis v OHIM (BLUE SOFT) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark BLUE SOFT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive nature — Lack of distinctive nature — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Novartis v OHIM (BLUE SOFT)
   (Case T-330/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BLUE SOFT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive nature - Lack of distinctive nature - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2008/C 183/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 270/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BLUE SOFT as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.


title: Case T-397/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by MobilCom Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/23

         Action brought on 6 October 2004 by MobilCom Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-397/04)
   (2004/C 314/55)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 2004 by MobilCom Aktiengesellschaft, Büdelsdorf (Germany), represented by K. Jacobsen, U. Wellmann and T. Sharpe.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 July 2004 concerning aid C5/03 (ex N 239/03);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 July 2004 concerning aid C5/03 (ex N 239/03), in so far as it is stated in the final clause ‘ … provided that Germany satisfies the condition referred to in Article 2 of this Decision’, and annul Articles 2 and 3 of that decision in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision, State aid granted to the applicant by Germany was declared to be compatible with the common market, subject to compliance by Germany with the condition referred to in Article 2 of that decision. As a result of that condition, the applicant is required to close its ‘online shop’ for seven months.
   The applicant submits, first, that the Commission has no material competence. Since the applicant exercises its activity as an intermediary for the sale of mobile telephony contracts exclusively in Germany, the grant of State aid cannot prejudice trade between the Member States.
   Moreover, the applicant argues that there is no appropriate legal basis for the imposition of such a condition and that there has therefore been an infringement of the EC Treaty or a provision to be applied in implementing the Treaty.
   According to the applicant, the condition imposed on the applicant is arbitrary as the reasons given for it are inadequate. The applicant therefore alleges that the Commission either erred in the exercise of it discretion or failed to exercise that discretion. Furthermore, the Commission failed to show clearly that the contested decision is necessary, appropriate and also the least restrictive measure and thus failed to comply with the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-347/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2009 — Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2009 — Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer
   (Case C-347/09)
   2009/C 282/45
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bezirksgericht Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as, in principle, precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 14 et seq. and Paragraph 21 of the Austrian Law on Gaming (Glücksspielgesetz), under which

                                       —

                                       a licence for lotteries (e.g. lotteries, electronic lotteries, etc.) may be granted to no more than one applicant for a period of up to 15 years, such applicant being required, inter alia, to be a capital company established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up nominal or share capital of at least EUR 109 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of federal taxation;

                                       —

                                       a licence for casinos may be granted to no more than 12 applicants for a period of up to 15 years, such applicants being required, inter alia, to be public limited companies established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up share capital of EUR 22 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of taxation for the regional authorities?

                                 These questions arise specifically against the following background: Casinos Austria AG holds all 12 casino licences, which were granted on 18 December 1991 for the maximum period of 15 years and which have since been extended without a public tendering procedure or notice.

                           (b)

                           If so, can such legislation also be justified for reasons relating to the public interest in a restriction of betting activities if the licensees in a quasi-monopoly are themselves pursuing a policy of expansion of games of chance, and employing intensive advertising in order to do so?

                           (c)

                           If so, must the referring court — in its examination of the proportionality of such legislation, which aims to prevent criminal offences by monitoring operators active in this sector and thereby steering gaming activities towards a regime in which they will be subject to checks — take account of the fact that the legislation also covers cross-border service providers who, in any event, are subject in the Member State of establishment to the strict conditions and checks associated with their licence?

               2.

               Are the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the continuing responsibility, in principle, of the Member States for the regulation of criminal law, rules of a Member State’s criminal law are nevertheless to be assessed by reference to Community law if they are liable to prohibit or impede the exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Is Article 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service provider’s State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which those services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust?

                           (b)

                           If so, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest in the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which a service provider is subject in the State in which he resides?

                           (c)

                           If so, must consideration be given — when examining the proportionality of a Member State’s rules imposing penalties for the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted in that Member State — to the fact that the regulatory interests upon which the State in which the services are provided relies in order to justify the restriction of the fundamental freedom are already sufficiently taken into account in the State of establishment in strict authorisation and supervision procedures?

                           (d)

                           If so, must the referring court take account — in the context of its examination of the proportionality of such a restriction — of the fact that, in the State in which the service provider resides, the degree of control exercised by virtue of the provisions in question actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided?

                           (e)

                           Moreover, does the principle of proportionality in the case of a prohibition — on pain of criminal penalties — of games of chance that is imposed for regulatory reasons, such as the protection of players and the fight against crime, require the referring court to make a distinction between providers who offer games of chance without any authorisation whatsoever, and those who are established and licensed in other Member States of the European Union and who conduct their activities in the exercise of their freedom to provide services?

                           (f)

                           In the examination of the proportionality of a Member State’s rules prohibiting the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted or authorisation given in that Member State, on pain of criminal penalties, must account be taken, lastly, of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to entry, it has not been possible for a provider of games of chance who is duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted in such a way that the temporary nature of the service provision precludes the service provider from equipping himself with a certain infrastructure (such as a server) in the host Member State without being deemed to be established in that Member State?

                           (b)

                           Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that a provision directed at support services within a Member State which prohibits them from facilitating the provision of services by a provider established in another Member State also amounts to a restriction of that service provider’s freedom to provide services if the support services are established in the same Member State as some of the recipients of the service?


title: Case C-249/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common fisheries policy — Conservation of resources — Control system in the fisheries sector — Regulation (EC) No 894/97 — Article 11 — Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 — Article 1(1) and (2) — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) — Prohibition of driftnets — Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure compliance with that prohibition)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-249/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - Control system in the fisheries sector - Regulation (EC) No 894/97 - Article 11 - Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 - Article 1(1) and (2) - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) - Prohibition of driftnets - Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure compliance with that prohibition)
   2009/C 312/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1) and of Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities — Measures to be taken in the case of non-compliance with the rules in force — Provisions relating to the retention on board or use of driftnets

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to control, inspect and survey in a satisfactory manner fishing activities within its territory and within the waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, in particular with regard to compliance with the provisions governing the retention on board and use of driftnets, and by not ensuring in a satisfactory manner that appropriate measures are taken against those responsible for infringements of the Community rules on the retention on board and use of driftnets, in particular by the imposition of dissuasive penalties on those persons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.


title: Case C-69/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovakia

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/27

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovakia
   (Case C-69/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/49)

      Language of the case: Slovak

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-288/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien, AB v Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Staff regulations — Conditions of employment applicable to other servants — Local member of staff at the representation of the Commission in Austria — Tax treatment)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-288/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien, AB v Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk (1)

   (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Staff regulations - Conditions of employment applicable to other servants - Local member of staff at the representation of the Commission in Austria - Tax treatment)
   (2005/C 271/16)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-288/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), made by decision of 28 June 2004, received at the Court on 6 July 2004, in the proceedings between AB and Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   For the purposes of applying Articles 13 and 16 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the decision of a Community institution defining the status of one of its servants and determining his conditions of employment is binding on national judicial and administrative authorities, so that they cannot make an independent classification of the employment relationship in question.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 09.10.2004.


title: Case T-49/09: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of services relating to the maintenance and development of the information systems of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Rejection of a tender — Action for annulment — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-49/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of services relating to the maintenance and development of the information systems of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy - Rejection of a tender - Action for annulment - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 165/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 November 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of call for tenders REGIO-A4-2008-01 for the maintenance and development of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy’s information systems (OJ 2008/S 117-155067) and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-512/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru (Croatia) lodged on 25 September 2015 — Siniša Pušić v Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru (Croatia) lodged on 25 September 2015 — Siniša Pušić v Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka
   (Case C-512/15)
   (2016/C 027/07)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siniša Pušić

      Defendants: Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the retrospective application of the law [on consumer credit] be interpreted and determined exclusively in accordance with the provisions of that law, and is such an application of the law [on consumer credit] consistent with EU law, in particular Article 30 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008, (1) the first paragraph of which expressly states that that directive does not apply to credit agreements concluded before the entry into force of national legislation that transposed the directive into national law?

               2.

               May the criminal provision of Article 26(1)(28) of the Croatian law on consumer credit, in the context described above, be interpreted consistently with Article 23 of the directive and in the light of the transitory provisions in Article 30 thereof, as meaning that the penalties laid down for breach of a national provision adopted on the basis of the directive in question may not be applied to breaches that may be found in respect of credit agreements ongoing at the date of the implementation of the national implementing measures?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Case T-189/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2017 — Deza v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) — Decision to disclose certain information considered confidential by the applicant — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Concept of private life — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2017 — Deza v ECHA
   (Case T-189/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) - Decision to disclose certain information considered confidential by the applicant - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Concept of private life - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 063/31)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by P. Dejl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by A. Iber, T. Zbihlej and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and by M. Mašková, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, P. Ondrůšek and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), and ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA’s decisions of 24 January 2014 concerning the disclosure of certain information submitted by the applicant in the course of the procedure relating to the application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Deza, a.s., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               4)

               Orders ClientEarth, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 205 /28       fEN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                       5 . 7 . 97
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                 NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                            (97 / C 205 / 10 )
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
            European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities No
            C 205 A on 5 July 1997 the following open competition :
            German edition :
            EUR/A/ 129 (Lawyers trained in Austrian law — Administrators)
            To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
           Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
            Closing date for applications : 15 September 1997.
                                                            CORRIGENDA
                            Corrigendum to the outcome of the invitation to tender (Community food aid)
                           (Official Journal of the European Communities No C 201 of 1 July 1997, page 16)
                                                             (97 /C 205 / 11 )
            1 . In footnote ('):
                for:   ' 878 000',
                 read: ' 875 000':
            2 . in the list of products following the footnote add :
                 'PISUM : Split peas'.


title: Case T-388/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Deutsche Post v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/33

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-388/11)
   2011/C 282/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 10 May 2011 in the State aid case C 36/2007 — Germany, State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C(2011) 3081 final);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 3081 final of 10 May 2011 in State aid case C 36/2007 — Germany, State aid to Deutsche Post AG, by which the Commission decided to extend the investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU in that case. The extension relates to the State financing of pensions of officials engaged by Deutsche Bundespost prior to the establishment of the applicant, a matter which was already the subject-matter of the Commission’s decision of 12 September 2007 to open proceedings in the present case.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: breach of Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifestly erroneous classification as aid
               The manifest error of assessment committed by the Commission lies in the fact that the Commission failed to apply the Combus case-law (judgment in Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd v Commission [2004] ECR II-917) to the present case. According to that case-law, measures which relieve former State undertakings from pension burdens which go beyond those normally borne by private undertakings do not constitute aid. Applied to the facts of the present case, it must necessarily follow that the State financing of pension liabilities cannot constitute aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law: breach of Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU — Manifest error of appraisal in the classification as ‘new’ aid
               The Commission’s patent error of assessment lies in the fact that the Commission failed to have regard for the fact that State liability for pension obligations — if the conditions for a finding that there is aid are at all met — can relate only to existing aid. The ongoing liability of the Federal authorities for the pension obligations results from the German Grundgesetz (Basic Law), and thus already existed when the Treaties entered into force and has since then undergone no essential alteration. Furthermore, the Commission is bound by the declaration in Case T-266/02 Deutsche Post v Commission [2008] ECR II-1233 that, with regard to pension regulation, it denied that there was precondition that there must be an aid-related ‘advantage’ already in its decision of 19 June 2002, which is equivalent to a negative certification under the law relating to aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law: breach of Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifestly erroneous method for calculating the alleged aid
               The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to carry out the compensatory calculation, which by its own submission was necessary, of the social benefits for officials actually borne by the applicant, less alleged ‘surcharges’ for social burdens unusual in competition in the prices authorised for the regulated products, and of the social contributions to be borne under normal market conditions by private competitors. The Commission’s method of calculation thus impermissibly excludes totally the level of the actual social benefits paid by the applicant for officials, with the result that it is immaterial for the level of the alleged aid calculated by the Commission whether and to what extent the applicant deducted social benefits. The applicant further submits that the alleged ‘surcharges’ in the prices are not verifiable and that, in any case, the social costs which are not normal in competition cannot in fact be covered by the results.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: breach of Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifestly erroneous classification of the alleged ‘cross-subsidisation’ of the non-regulated area by the regulated area as a factor determining the existence of aid
               In this connection, the applicant submits, in particular, that the Commission failed to carry out the requisite over-compensation calculation and failed to check whether the State compensation payments had at all exceeded the costs in respect of which compensation was payable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: breach of Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifest error in the application of the benchmark of the social burdens usual in competition
               The applicant submits in this regard in particular that, in its calculation of the social contributions of private employers which are usual in competition, the Commission included employees’ contributions, even though these are attributable to the assets of the employees and not to the social contributions to be borne by the employer; furthermore, the Commission, for the purpose of the benchmark, took as its point of reference the (excessive) level of salaries of officials instead of the wage and salary level of private undertakings usual in competition. If these two errors are corrected, as is required, the alleged aid disappears entirely.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU — Failure to state reasons
               Finally, the applicant submits, the contested decision is not adequately reasoned.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-11/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2016 — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2016 — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
   (Case C-11/16)
   (2016/C 111/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ignazio Messina & C. SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Genova

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to an Italian port?

               2.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions and/or duties and/or activities not expressly funded by that fee?

               3.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions by entities other than that which receives the fee?

               4.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions but no determination has been made of the individual costs to be covered, so that it is not possible to verify, either beforehand or afterwards, the costs of which services have in fact been covered [or] in what way and to what extent that fee has in fact funded those services?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1).


title: Case C-209/08: Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/28

         Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-209/08)
   (2008/C 171/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Maria Condou Durande, agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (1) or, in any event, by not having informed the Commission of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 5 August 2006. At the date of bringing this action, the defendant has not yet taken the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, has not informed the Commission of them.

      (1)  OJ L 261, p. 19.


title: Case C-16/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Republic of Latvia) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Active matrix liquid crystal devices)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Republic of Latvia) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-16/08) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Active matrix liquid crystal devices)
   2009/C 180/21
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schenker SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Active matrix liquid crystal device (LCD) — Classification in heading 8528 21 90 or 9013 80 20 of the Combined Nomenclature — Whether an article has or not the essential characteristics of a complete or finished product.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Subheading 8528 21 90 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as not applying, as at 29 December 2004, to active matrix liquid crystal devices (LCD) principally made up of the following elements:

               —

               two glass plates;

               —

               a layer of liquid crystal inserted between the two plates;

               —

               vertical and horizontal signal drivers;

               —

               backlight;

               —

               inverter providing high-voltage power for backlight;

         and

               —

               control block — data transmission interface (control PCB or PWB) to ensure sequential transmission of data to each pixel (dot) of the LCD unit using specific technology — LVDS (low-voltage differential signalling).

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case F-46/13: Action brought on 16 May 2013 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/62

         Action brought on 16 May 2013 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-46/13)
   2013/C 207/109
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the application for the employment of the applicant as a contract agent in function group II submitted by DG DEVCO and compensation for the material damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission, as AECE, of 4 October 2012 not to recruiter the applicant as an auxiliary contract agent in function group II;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the AECE decision of 7 February 2013 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 19 October 2012;

               —

               award compensation for his material damage;

               —

               award the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at EUR 50 000 in respect of non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-235/92 P: Montecatini SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Limitation rules - Fine)

text:
4.12.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 352/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders Montecatini SpA to pay the costs;
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
                           of 8 July 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
in Case C-235/92 P: Montecatini SpA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Commission’s Rules of Procedure — Procedure
for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members
of the Commission — Competition rules applicable to
undertakings — Concepts of agreement and concerted prac-
                tice — Limitation rules — Fine)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (1999/C 352/01)                                                          of 7 September 1999
                                                                             in Case C-216/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Belfast): Jennifer Gregg and
                                                                              Mervyn Gregg v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            in the public interest — Establishment — Organisation —
                                                                             Meaning — Services performed by an association of two
                                                                                natural persons (partnership))
In Case C-235/92 P: Montecatini SpA (formerly Montedison
SpA, then Montepolimeri SpA, then Montedipe SpA), whose
registered office is in Milan, Italy, represented by G. Aghina                                         (1999/C 352/02)
and G. Celona, of the Milan Bar, and P.A.M. Ferrari, of the
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of G. Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II, supported by                                         (Language of the case: English)
DSM NV, whose registered office is in Heerlen, Netherlands,
represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a
                                                                             (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
Rue des Bains — Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
of 10 March 1992 in Case T-14/89 Montedipe v Commission
[1992] ECR II-1155, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 In Case C-216/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC), by the VAT and Duties
the European Communities (Agent: G. Marenco) — the Court                     Tribunal, Belfast, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the               the proceedings pending before that tribunal between Jennifer
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray                   Gregg and Mervyn Gregg and Commissioners of Customs &
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.                    Excise, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (g) of the
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar and D. Louterman-Hubeau,                      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform


title: Case C-371/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)
   (Case C-371/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: L'Oréal SA (represented by: J. P. Mioludo, advogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 8 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 1997 in Case C-236/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 7/5
candidates unless reasons specific to an individual male             1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
candidate tilt the balance in his favour is not precluded by              prescribed the measures necessary to comply with:
Article 2 (1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
9 February 1976, on the implementation of the principle
of equal treatment for men and women as regards access                    Ð Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991
to employment, vocational training and promotion, and                         on batteries and accumulators containing certain
working conditions, provided that:                                            dangerous substances, and
Ð in each individual case the rule provides for male                      Ð Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October
     candidates who are equally as qualified as the female                    1993 adapting to technical progress Directive 91/
     candidates a guarantee that the candidatures will be                     157/EEC,
     the subject of an objective assessment which will take
     account of all criteria specific to the candidates and
     will override the priority accorded to female                        the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply
     candidates where one or more of those criteria tilts the             with its obligations under Article 11 (1) of Directive
     balance in favour of the male candidate, and                         91/157/EEC and Article 7 (1) of Directive 93/86/EEC;
Ð such criteria are not such as to discriminate against              2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     the female candidates.                                               costs.
(1) OJ C 46, 17. 2. 1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 269, 14. 9. 1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                     of 13 November 1997
in    Case C-236/96: Commission of the European                                          of 20 November 1997
      Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)                 in Case C-338/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose                the Bundesfinanzhof): Wiener SI GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
           Directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC)                                               Emmerich (1)
                          (98/C 7/09)                                (Common Customs Tariff Ð Tariff heading Ð Nightdress)
                                                                                (98/C 7/10)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-236/96: Commission of the European                                   published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Federal
Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to           In Case C-338/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
adopt within the periods prescribed the measures                     of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for
necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/157/EEC                a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators                       that court between Wiener SI GmbH and Hauptzollamt
containing certain dangerous substances (OJ L 78, 26. 3.             Emmerich Ð on the interpretation of subheading 60.04 B
1991, p. 38), and Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of                  IV b 2 bb of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version
4 October 1993 adapting to technical progress Directive              resulting from Council Regulation (EEC) No 3400/84 of
91/157/EEC (OJ L 264, 23. 10. 1993, p. 51), the Federal              27 November 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/
Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its                    68 on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 320, 10. 12.
obligations under the Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth                      1984, p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                      M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                 Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has             given a judgment on 20 November 1997, the operative
given a judgment on 13 November 1997, in which it:                   part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-160/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MINICARGO — Earlier Community word mark MINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)
   (Case T-160/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MINICARGO - Earlier Community word mark MINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 145/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Developpement (Baud, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2015 (Case R 596/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and LG Developpement.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Developpement to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.