title: Case C-42/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2012 by Václav Hrbek against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2011 in Case T-434/10: Václav Hrbek v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/17

         Appeal brought on 27 January 2012 by Václav Hrbek against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2011 in Case T-434/10: Václav Hrbek v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-42/12 P)
   2012/C 98/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Václav Hrbek (represented by: M. Sabatier, Advocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Outdoor Group Ltd (The)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the appeal and, accordingly, set aside the Judgment of the General Court, in case T-434/10, in its entirety, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 113 or the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               Give final judgment — if the state of the proceedings so permits — by annulling the Decision of the OHIM Opposition Division, rendered on 29.09.2009, ruling on Opposition No B 1 276 692, and the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of July 8, 2010, in case R 1441/2009-2, and order the defendants to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as those of the OHIM opposition proceedings, according to article 122 of the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               Alternatively, if the state of the proceedings does not so permit, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the binding criteria established by the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the Appellant considers that the judgement under appeal is vitiated by misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of December 20, 1993 on the Community trade mark (hereinafter ‘CTMR’) (1), as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of February 26, 2009 (2), which entered into force on April 13, 2009).

                  The Appellant complains that the General Court did not examine the marks at issue on the basis of the criteria of ‘global assessment’ or ‘overall impression’.

               The General Court failed to give effect the above-mentioned principle, basing its assessment exclusively on the fact that they share the common element ‘ALPINE’. It limited itself to holding that the two marks under comparison are similar, sharing the word component ‘ALPINE’, without examining the signs as whole, and
                     without explaining
                   why the other word and figurative elements, as a whole, are not sufficient to exclude a risk of confusion.

                  The Appellant complains that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to consider some extremely important and pertinent factors, on the one hand, and did not properly apply some very important criteria, on the other hand, in particular the lack of distinctiveness and the descriptive character of the word element ‘ALPINE’.

               The General Court did not conclude on the meaning of the term ‘alpine’ for all the languages of the European Union. Moreover, the General Court did not draw the legal conclusions from its owns findings concerning the clear meaning of the term ‘alpine’ and did not clearly conclude on the lack of distinctiveness and the descriptive characters of the word ‘alpine’, considering that the alleged weak distinctive character, or descriptive character, of the element ‘alpine’ cannot preclude a likelihood of confusion. The General Court held that ‘ALPINE’ would be the dominant element in both signs, without taking into consideration the lack, or at least, the very low level of, distinctiveness of the earlier mark ALPINE. The reasoning of the Judgement under appeal is vitiated by a contradiction which led the General Court wrongly to decide that the marks at issue were conceptually similar without taking into consideration the lack, or at least, the low level of, distinctiveness of the earlier mark ALPINE. A conceptual comparison of the word element ‘ALPINE’ is irrelevant, because of the lack of distinctiveness.

                  The Appellants complains, that the judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to draw the correct legal conclusions from its owns findings concerning the degree of attention of the relevant public.

               The General Court could not, without contradicting itself, maintain, in respect of skiwear, ski footwear, headgear, as well as backpacks and rucksacks, that part of the relevant public is composed of well-informed and particularly attentive consumers and confirm that the marks and goods were similar.

                  The Appellant complains that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a distortion of the facts, and by a violation of the duty to provide reasons, concerning the comparison of the goods.

               The General Court maintained that the appellant did not put forward specific arguments capable of challenging the conclusions of the Board of Appeal. As regards the assessment of the degree of similarity of the goods and services in question, what does not follow from evidence or is not well known cannot be taken into account. The onus for proving that the goods and services are similar rests on the Appellant for opposition, and not on the owner of the CTM applied for. The General Court must give legal basis for its decision, and must provide reasons for it. The General Court did not establish that the relevant goods are identical, similar or complementary, in the marketplace, but proceeded by assertion, without giving any reasons or examples for its presumption.

      (1)  OJ L 11, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case F-44/09: Action brought on 17 April 2009 — Knöll v Europol

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/64

         Action brought on 17 April 2009 — Knöll v Europol
   (Case F-44/09)
   2009/C 180/118
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the applicant’s objections to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case T-793/14: Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/21

         Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission
   (Case T-793/14)
   (2015/C 081/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Tempus Energy Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom); and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, C. Ziegler and M. Kinsella, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By their action the applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 in case SA.35980 (2014/N-2) — United Kingdom, Electricity Market Reform — Capacity Market.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and legitimate expectation and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The applicants submit that:

                           —

                           the Commission failed to properly assess the potential role of Demand-Side Response (‘DSR’) in the UK capacity market;

                           —

                           the restrictions on the duration of DSR contracts under the capacity market violate the principles of legitimate expectation and non-discrimination, and are based on a wrong assessment of the facts;

                           —

                           the requirement for DSR operators to choose between transitional and enduring market auctions violates the principles of legitimate expectation and non-discrimination;

                           —

                           the capacity market’s cost recovery methodology violates the principles of non-discrimination, legitimate expectation and proportionality;

                           —

                           the use of open-ended capacity events rather than time-bound ones in the enduring auctions of the capacity market is contrary to the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation;

                           —

                           the capacity market’s bid bond requirement to obtain access to the auctions violates the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation; and

                           —

                           the capacity market’s failure to provide for additional remuneration for savings in transmission and distribution losses from DSR violates the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commissions failed to provide adequate reasoning in the Decision.


title: Case T-29/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Daxon — Earlier Community word mark DALTON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)
   (Case T-29/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Daxon - Earlier Community word mark DALTON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 26/85
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erika Bauer (Schaufling, Germany) (represented by: A. Merz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BenQ Materials Corp. (Gueishan Taoyuan, Taiwan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 November 2011 (Case R 2191/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mrs Erika Bauer and BenQ Materials Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Alva Management GmbH is granted leave to be substituted for Mrs Erika Bauer as applicant;

               2.

               The action is dismissed.

               3.

               Alva Management is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case T-86/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-86/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marion Anne Perrine Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 5 December 2016 declaring that the sum of EUR 298 497,87 had been unduly paid to the applicant and had to be recovered from her as well as debit note No 2016-1560 of 6 December 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-159/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon by decisionof that court of 26 November 2003 in the caseof Carrefour Marinopoulos AE against (1) Elliniko Dimosio and (2) NomarkhiakiAftodiikisi Ioanninon

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/48

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon by decision of that court of 26 November 2003 in the case of Carrefour Marinopoulos AE against (1) Elliniko Dimosio and (2) Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon
   (Case C-159/04)
   (2004/C 106/84)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon (Administrative Court of First Instance, Ioannina) of 26 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carrefour Marinopoulos AE against (1) Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and (2) Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon (Prefectural Authority of Ioannina) on the following questions:

               (a)

               Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’ products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty?

               (b)

               If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the characteristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect consumers and public health from any deterioration in the bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) 3852/2002)?

               (c)

               On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the free trading of those products between Member States?


title: Case C-240/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air carrier liability in the event of accidents — Action for damages — Montreal Convention — Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 — Flight operated free of charge by the owner of a property in order to show that property to a prospective purchaser — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Direct action provided for by national law against the civil-liability insurer)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG
   (Case C-240/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air carrier liability in the event of accidents - Action for damages - Montreal Convention - Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 - Flight operated free of charge by the owner of a property in order to show that property to a prospective purchaser - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Direct action provided for by national law against the civil-liability insurer))
   (2015/C 363/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Korneuburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eleonore Prüller-Frey

      Defendants: Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a determination on the basis of Article 17 of that Convention of a claim for damages brought by a person who — whilst she (i) was a passenger in an aircraft that had the same place of take-off and landing in a Member State and (ii) was being carried free of charge for the purpose of viewing from the air a property in connection with a property transaction planned with the pilot of that aircraft — was physically injured when the aircraft crashed.

               2.

               Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, a person who has suffered damage is entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the person liable to provide compensation, where such an action is provided for by the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, regardless of the provision made by the law that the parties have chosen as the law applicable to the insurance contract.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-152/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — Arcor AG & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — Arcor AG & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-152/07)
   (2007/C 140/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Arcor AG & Co. KG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Intervener: Deutsche Telekom AG
   Questions referred
   Are Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (Competition Directive) (1) and Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (Interconnection Directive) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority is precluded from requiring, in 2003, the operator of a network which is interconnected with a public local telecommunications network to pay a contribution to the market-dominant operator of the local network in order to compensate him for the deficit incurred as a result of providing the local loop?
   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
   Is the incompatibility with Community law of such a requirement, which is a provision of domestic law, to be taken into account by the national court in proceedings concerning the approval of a contribution by the interconnected network operator?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.


title: Case T-425/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Mixfront — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront)
   (Case T-425/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Mixfront - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 32/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner, subsequently by: R. Manea and finally by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 338/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Mixfront as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-234/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CANNABIS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)
   (Case T-234/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CANNABIS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 11/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Giampietro Torresan (Rothenburg, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Recher, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (Weissonohe, Germany) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and R. Cartella, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Giampietro Torresan to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-87/07: Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/25

         Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-87/07)
   (2007/C 82/46)
   Language of the case: Maltese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou Durande and K. Xuereb, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 3 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 251, p. 12.


title: Case C-210/01: Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
28.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/15
3.    If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Is it contrary to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 15 June 1999
      Article 48 of the EC Treaty if an EC official living in            without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
      Luxembourg who is deemed to be resident in Germany                 necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
      and pays contributions in Luxembourg to the statutory              referred to in the Commission’s application.
      pension insurance scheme for a household help is not
      entitled to deduct special expenditure under Para-
      graph 10(1)(8) of the Einkommensteuergesetz?                       (1) OJ L 71, 10.3.1998, p. 1.
4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: May the
      principles developed in the judgment in Case C-112/91
      Werner [1993] ECR I-429 be applied to the present case?
                                                                         Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                                                                                (Case C-211/01)
Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of                                               (2001/C 212/26)
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (Case C-210/01)                                 23 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 212/25)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            —     annul the Council decisions of 19 March 2001 concern-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May                         ing the conclusion of the agreement between the Euro-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            pean Community and Bulgaria and Hungary (1) on trans-
represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as                    port inasmuch as they are based on Article 93 EC whereas
Agents.                                                                        the necessary and sufficient legal basis is Article 71 EC;
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of those agreements until the Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    adopts new measures;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the costs.
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      mission Directive 98/11/EC of 27 January 1998                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
      to energy labelling of household lamps (1) or, in any              The proper legal basis for the adoption of the transport
      event, by failing to forward them to the Commission, the           agreements referred to is Article 71 EC, the only basis required
      Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that       by the primary objective of the said instruments. The fiscal
      directive; and                                                     element must form an integral part of those agreements
                                                                         because it is involved in the objective of implementing the
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       common transport policy. Its role is to ensure that the system
                                                                         of reciprocal authorisations, created under the agreements, is
                                                                         run in a non-discriminatory manner.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The concurrent use of Article 93 EC as a legal basis is precluded
                                                                         by the fact that Article 71 requires only qualified majority
                                                                         voting in the Council, whereas Article 93 requires unanimity.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 Admittedly, the problem regarding consultation of the Euro-
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        pean Parliament has not arisen in practice in light of
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            Article 300(3) which governs the conclusion of international
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          agreements. Nevertheless the possibility remains since the


title: Case T-310/15: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of copper compounds on that list — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures — Inadmissible)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/32

         Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
   (Case T-310/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Plant-protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of copper compounds on that list - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures - Inadmissible))
   (2016/C 251/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Parliament and the Council.

               3.

               European Union Copper Task Force is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-107/09: Action brought on 12 March 2009 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/40

         Action brought on 12 March 2009 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-107/09)
   2009/C 113/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, agent assisted by T. Eicke, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (1) in part, namely in so far as it has the effect of applying a correction to the Fruit and Vegetable aid scheme against the United Kingdom for alleged weaknesses in its control system concerning the recognition of POs created before 2002 (not providing technical means) and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of present application, the applicant seeks the partial annulement of Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) on the ground that the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 11(2)(d) of Council Regulation No 2200/96 (2) in finding that the United Kingdom government had failed to observe the conditions laid down in that provision for the recognition of Producer Organisation in the fruit and vegetable sector.
   The applicant contends that the Commission’s restrictive interpretation of Article 11(2)(d) of Council Regulation 2200/96 underlying the relevant aspects of the contested decision is inconsistent both with the language and with the object and purpose of that provision.

      (1)  Notified under document number C(2008) 7820, OJ 2008 L 340, p. 99

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P: Aalborg Portland A/S and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Cement market — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Single and continuous infringement — Liability for an infringement — Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation — Fine — Determination of the amount)

text:
6.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 59/1
                                                                        I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95
                                                                           Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   491, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other
                                                                           party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
                        of 7 January 2004                                  Communities, represented in Case C-204/00 P by R. Lyal and
                                                                           by H.P. Hartvig, acting as Agents, and in the other cases by
in Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P,                        R. Lyal, and also by N. Coutrelis, avocat (C-211/00 P) and by
C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P: Aalborg Portland                    A. Dal Ferro, avvocato (C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/
A/S and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                       00 P), with an address for service in Luxembourg, the Court
                               ties (1)                                    (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President
                                                                           of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
                                                                           A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
(Appeal — Competition — Cement market — Article 85(1)
                                                                           General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and H.A. Rühl,
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Jurisdiction of
                                                                           Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 7 January
the Court of First Instance — Rights of the defence —
                                                                           2004, in which it:
Access to the file — Single and continuous infringement —
Liability for an infringement — Evidence of participation in
the general agreement and measures of implementation —
             Fine — Determination of the amount)
                          (2004/C 59/01)                                   1.    Sets aside paragraph 12, seventh indent, of the operative part
                                                                                of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      (Languages of the cases: Danish, English, French, Italian)                 Communities of 15 March 2000 in Cases T-25/95, T-26/
                                                                                95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to
                                                                                T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-66/95, T-68/95 to T-71/
In Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/                       95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95;
00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P, Aalborg Portland A/S,
established in Aalborg (Denmark), represented by K. Dyekjær-
Hansen and K. Høegh, advokaterne (C-204/00 P), Irish Cement
Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by P. Sreenan            2.    Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Ciments français SA
SC, instructed by J. Glackin, Solicitor, with an address for                     for the infringement found in Article 1 of Commission Decision
service in Luxembourg (C-205/00 P), Ciments français SA,                         94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding
established in Paris (France), represented by A. Winckler,                       under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg (C-211/00                      33.322 — Cement) at EUR 9 620 000;
P), Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, established
in Bergamo (Italy), represented by A. Predieri, M. Siragusa,
M. Beretta, C. Lanciani and F. Moretti, avvocati, with an address
for service in Luxembourg (C-213/00 P), Buzzi Unicem SpA,
                                                                           3.    Dismisses the appeals for the remainder;
formerly Unicem SpA, established in Casale Monferrato (Italy),
represented by C. Osti and A. Prastaro, avvocati, with an
address for service in Luxembourg (C-217/00 P), and Cementir
— Cementerie del Tirreno SpA, established in Rome (Italy),
represented by G.M. Roberti and P. Criscuolo Gaito, avvocati               4.    Orders Aalborg Portland A/S, Irish Cement Ltd, Italcementi-
(C-219/00 P): APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of                        Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, Buzzi Unicem SpA and
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases                       Cementir-Cementerie del Tirreno SpA to pay the costs in Cases
T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95,                        C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and
T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/                           C-219/00 P;
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.3.2004
5.    Orders Ciments français SA and the Commission of the                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      European Communities to bear their own costs in Case C-211/
      00 P.                                                                  2.    Orders the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV,
                                                                                Bayer AG and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical
                                                                                Industries’ Associations to bear their own costs in relation to
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.08.2000.                                                        Case C-2/01 P;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs in relation to Case C-3/01 P;
                                                                             4.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001.
                         of 6 January 2004
in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband
der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV against Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Appeals — Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of
agreement between undertakings — Proof of the existence of                                          of 11 November 2003
    an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)
                                                                                in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (1)
                          (2004/C 59/02)
                                                                             (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under
                   (Language of the case: German)                            Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
                                                                             Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive
                                                                             dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmis-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                sible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/03)
In Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband der
Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in Mülheim an der                                         (Language of the case: French)
Ruhr (Germany), (Agnets: U. Zinsmeister and W.A. Rehmann),
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies                                            in the European Court Reports)
(EAEPC), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Agents: M. Epping
and M. Lienemeyer), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Wiedner and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund),                  In Case C-488/01 P, Jean-Claude Martinez, a member of
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      the European Parliament, residing in Montpellier (France),
Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse), and by European                         represented by F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel,
Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC): two                    avocats: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended                         Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
Composition) of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 Bayer v                      and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001]
Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, seeking to have that judg-                    ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Bayer            parties to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents:
AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), (Agent: J. Sedemund)                G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück), defendant at first
with an address for service in Luxembourg, and European                      instance, Charles de Gaulle, a member of the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, estab-                Parliament, residing in Paris (France), applicant at first instance,
lished in Geneva (Switzerland), (Agent: A. Woodgate), the                    the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,                          C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha
C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of                    Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             order on 11 November 2003, the operative part of which is as
on 6 January 2004, in which it:                                              follows:


title: Case C-453/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov lodged on 16 September 2010 — Jana Pereničová, Vladislav Perenič v S.O.S. financ, spol. sro

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov lodged on 16 September 2010 — Jana Pereničová, Vladislav Perenič v S.O.S. financ, spol. sro
   (Case C-453/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/28
   Language of the case: Slovakian

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Prešov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jana Pereničová, Vladislav Perenič

      Defendant: S.O.S. financ, spol. sro

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the scope of consumer protection under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) such as to make it possible, where unfair contractual clauses are found in a consumer contract, to conclude that the contract as a whole is not binding on the consumer, if that is more advantageous to the consumer?

               2.

               Are the criteria determining what is an unfair commercial practice in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business to consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council such as to permit the conclusion that, if a supplier quotes in the contract a lower annual percentage rate (APR) than is in fact the case, it is possible to regard that step by the supplier towards the consumer as an unfair commercial practice? If there is a finding of an unfair commercial practice, does Directive 2005/29/EC permit there to be any impact on the validity of a credit agreement and on the achievement of the objective in Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, if invalidity of the contract is more advantageous for the consumer?

      (1)  OJ L 112, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ L 149, p. 22.


title: Case F-76/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 — Behmer v Parliament

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 — Behmer v Parliament
   (Case F-76/08) (1)

   2012/C 138/92
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008, p. 56.


title: Case C-80/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Novara — Italy) — Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi, Associazione Nazionale Artigiani Legno e Arredamenti v Ecorad Srl (Directive 89/106/EC — Construction products — Procedure for attestation of conformity — Commission Decision 1999/93/EC — Horizontal direct effect — No such effect)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Novara — Italy) — Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi, Associazione Nazionale Artigiani Legno e Arredamenti v Ecorad Srl
   (Case C-80/06) (1)

   (Directive 89/106/EC - Construction products - Procedure for attestation of conformity - Commission Decision 1999/93/EC - Horizontal direct effect - No such effect)
   (2007/C 170/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale ordinario di Novara
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi, Associazione Nazionale Artigiani Legno e Arredamenti

      Defendant: Ecorad Srl
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Novara — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/93/EC of 25 January 1999 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware (OJ 1999 L 29, p. 51), and of Annexes II and III thereto — Manufacture of doors fitted with panic bars by fitters who have not complied with the attestation procedure laid down by the decision — Exclusion?
   Operative part of the judgment
   An individual cannot rely, in the context of legal proceedings against another individual concerning contractual liability, on the infringement by the latter of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/93/EC of 25 January 1999 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware, and of Annexes II and III thereto.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-137/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/15

         Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission
   (Case T-137/15)
   (2015/C 190/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl (Corsico, Italy); and Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Mayfield Heights, United States) (represented by: B. Amory, F. Marchini Camia, and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it imposes default interest of EUR 1 8 59  949,04;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the default interest; and;

               —

               order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one main plea, and in the alternative, in seven other pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is ultra vires.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that there is no legal basis to impose default interest when the fine was paid within the required time-frame set in the decision imposing the fine.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging absence or inadequacy of the reasons stated in the contested decision.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the contested decision provides neither the factual nor the legal basis for the application of default interest in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the application of default interest is disproportionate in view of the aim pursued by the default interest.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the Commission imposes default interest of 6 % in the present case whilst when it reimbursed part of the fine to the applicants it paid back interest of 1,06 %.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that they could not have anticipated, on the basis of the decision imposing the fine and of the delegated Regulation, the imposition of default interest in the present situation. They furthermore state, that they could have legitimately expected that the Commission would not have applied default interest to the present situation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the right of effective judicial protection.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the contested decision infringes Article 266 TFEU insofar as it pre-empts its effet utile and it infringes the right of effective judicial protection since by asserting their fundamental right to seek judicial redress, the applicants now face the imposition of a manifestly disproportionate interest rate.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the application of default interest in the present case constitute an unjust enrichment on the part of the Commission.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the imposition of default interest on the applicants results in an outcome that totally deviates from the objectives behind conferring the Commission with delegated powers to set default interest.


title: Case T-208/13: Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Portugal Telecom v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/22

         Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Portugal Telecom v Commission
   (Case T-208/13)
   2013/C 164/38
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and R. Bordalo Junqueiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C(2013) 306, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Commission’s decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It was found in the contested decision that Portugal Telecom and Telefónica S.A. infringed Article 101 TFEU in inserting a clause 9 in the agreement by which Telefónica S.A acquired a block of shares from Portugal Telecom in Brasilcel NV. The Commission interpreted that clause as a no-competition agreement independent of the transaction at issue.
   In support of its action, Portugal Telecom relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements:

                           —

                           The applicant considers that the decision is erroneous, since the grounds thereof contain omissions, imprecisions and errors in essential areas, which adversely affect the form of order which the applicant seeks;

                           —

                           The applicant further considers that the decision is based on insufficient evidence, in so far as the Commission does not furnish any evidence to weaken the evidence furnished by the applicant and from which it results that Clause 9 of the agreement contains a no-competition agreement which, given the circumstances in which it came into being, could not be relied on without the prior authorisation of both parties;

                           —

                           Moreover, the applicant considers that Clause 9 of the agreement cannot be classed as a restriction by object and that the Commission failed to show, as it was required to do, the existence of actual or potential restrictive effects which could constitute an infringement of the rules on competition.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Treaty and of the law relating to its application:

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the Commission’s decision infringes European Union law in the following ways:

                                       (a)

                                       It contains a manifest error in relation to the facts, the evidence and the adequacy of the evidence, in so far as the Commission wrongly assessed and interpreted the information submitted by the parties to the proceedings and, consequently, failed to draw the most plausible conclusions from the evidence before it;

                                       (b)

                                       It erroneously interprets Article 101 TFEU and thus infringes that provision, to the extent that the Commission wrongly and with no basis classed the parties as potential competitors in general on the markets allegedly covered by the no-competition agreement; that clause could not be qualified as a restriction by object without the Commission showing that any effects had been produced;

                                       (c)

                                       It infringes the duty to investigate and to give a ruling, in so far as the decision fails to evaluate or refute a series of relevant arguments submitted by the parties, in particular, in relation to the scope of the no-competition agreement;

                                       (d)

                                       It infringes the principle in dubio pro reo, in that the Commission deems certain facts which are unfavorable to the applicant to have been established, and in relation to which significant doubts exist and in respect of which the Commission itself is uncertain;

                                       (e)

                                       It infringes the principles by which the Commission is bound when imposing fines, as set out in paragraph 13 of the Guidelines which exist in that area, in so far as the Commission calculated the fine in relation to electronic communications markets in general, whether situated in the Iberian Peninsula or not, and also ignored the fact that, in any event, the alleged infringement did not continue after 29 October 2010;

                                       (f)

                                       It infringes the principle of proportionality, given the circumstances of the case and the criteria which must be observed when imposing fines.


title: Case T-16/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission (State aid — Recapitalisation of a public service broadcaster following a first decision ordering the recovery of incompatible State aid — Decision not to raise objections — Annulment of the first decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/47

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission
   (Case T-16/05) (1)

   (State aid - Recapitalisation of a public service broadcaster following a first decision ordering the recovery of incompatible State aid - Decision not to raise objections - Annulment of the first decision - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 282/89
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Niejahr, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: SBS TV A/S, formerly TV Danmark A/S (Skovlunde, Denmark); and SBS Danish Televsion Ltd, formerly Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd (Hounslow, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented inititially by D. Vandermeersch, K.-U. Karl, K. Nordlander and H. Peytz, and subsequently by D. Vandermeersch, K.-U. Karl and H. Peytz, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark, (represented by: J. Molde, Agent, and by P. Biering and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyers); and TV 2/Danmark A/S (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard and M. Thorninger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 3632 final of 6 October 2004 relating to the recapitalisation of TV 2/Danmark A/S.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on this action;

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-56/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Saint-Gobain Glass France and Others v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/31

         Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Saint-Gobain Glass France and Others v Commission
   (Case T-56/09)
   2009/C 90/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Saint-Gobain Glass France SA (Courbevoie, France), Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Aachen, Germany), Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SAS (Thourotte, France) (represented by: B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, B. Meyring, M. Guillaumond and E. Venot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought
       (1)

               —

               annul the amended version of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC in Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass as adopted by Decision C(2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009, which was notified to the applicants on 13 and 16 February 2009, together with the grounds on which the operative part of the decision was reached, in so far as the amended version of that decision is addressed to the applicants; alternatively, annul Article 2 thereof;

               —

               in the alternative, to reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the amended version of the decision as adopted by Decision C(2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009, which was notified to the applicants on 13 and 16 February 2009, to an appropriate amount;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   With the present action, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 in Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass, in which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicants, had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing contracts for the supply of car glass and by coordinating their pricing policies and supply strategies on the European market for car glass.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law alleging:

               —

               infringement of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal and of the right to respect for the presumption of innocence in so far as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction, and that Regulation No 1/2003 (2) is unlawful in so far as it does not provide for that right to an independent and impartial tribunal;

               —

               infringement of the right of the applicants to a fair hearing since the applicants were not given an opportunity by the Commission to comment on the method for calculating the fine pursuant to the 2006 guidelines on fines (3);

               —

               infringement of Article 253 EC since the contested decision is not reasoned to the requisite legal standard in so far as the Commission did not specifically explain on the basis of which sales the turnover in relation to the infringement had been calculated;

               —

               infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the principle that penalties are personal and a misuse of powers as the 10% ceiling should have been applied solely to the applicants’ turnover and not to the turnover of the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain;

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of penalties in so far as the Commission applied the 2006 guidelines on fines retroactively, which resulted in a significant and unforeseeable increase in the level of the fines, by basing the contested decision on those guidelines despite the fact that they were adopted after the infringement had ended;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality in that the fine imposed was excessive, disproportionate and cannot be justified by the objective of deterrence;

               —

               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and failure to state reasons in so far as the Commission is not entitled to base its decision on the two cases of previous infringement which were regarded as relevant in the contested decision, on the ground that neither of those two decisions was addressed to the applicants;

               —

               an error of law and of assessment in the application of Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the Commission did not take into account, in calculating the fine, that the applicants had not substantially contested the accuracy of the facts.

      (1)  As amended after the action was brought because of a corrigendum to the contested decision adopted by the Commission.

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

      (3)  Commission Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


20150731029616882015/C 270/342742015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150616272711Case T-274/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Order to submit to an inspection — Refusal to suspend the investigation — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2710120150616EN0034271271Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
   (Case T-274/15 R)
   ‛(Interim measures — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Order to submit to an inspection — Refusal to suspend the investigation — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)’2015/C 270/34Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, V. Bottka and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, first, suspension of the implementation of decision C (2015) 1769 final of the Commission of 12 March 2015 addressed to Alcogroup and all the undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it including Alcodis, relating to proceedings under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40244 — AQUAVIT) and its decision of 8 May 2015 addressed to Alcogroup in investigations AT.A0244 — Bioethanol — and AT.A0054 — Oil and Biofuel Markets and, second, an order that the Commission suspend all investigations in proceedings AT. A0054 and AT.A0244.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The application for interim measures is dismissed.

            2.

            The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-110/14: Action brought on 15 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/46

         Action brought on 15 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-110/14)
   (2015/C 026/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension in the European Union’s pension scheme pursuant to the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII is unlawful and, therefore, inapplicable,

               —

               annul the decision of 24 May 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011,

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-422/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 27 August 2010 — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 27 August 2010 — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-422/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

      Question referred

               1.

               Does the SPC Regulation and, in particular, Article 3(b), permit the grant of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for a single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients where:

                           (a)

                           a basic patent in force protects the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation; and

                           (b)

                           a medicinal product containing the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients together with one or more other active ingredients is the subject of a valid authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC (1) or 2001/82/EC (2) which is the first marketing authorization that places the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients on the market?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
   OJ L 311, p. 67

      (2)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products
   OJ L 311, p. 1


title: Case T-167/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — RV v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Placed on leave and automatically retired — Application for a stay of execution — Not urgent)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — RV v Commission
   (Case T-167/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Civil Service - Placed on leave and automatically retired - Application for a stay of execution - Not urgent))
   (2017/C 178/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and retiring the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-42/11: Action brought on 9 April 2011 — Honnefelder v European Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/34

         Action brought on 9 April 2011 — Honnefelder v European Commission
   (Case F-42/11)
   2011/C 186/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Stephanie Honnefelder (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bode, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annul the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant in the reserve list for selection procedure EPSO/AD/26/05

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant of 11 February 2011;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               As an interim measure, judgment in default.


title: Case T-193/02: Action brought on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau against Commission of the European Communities

text:
14.9.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 219/21
Action brought on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau against                    Moreover, the applicant alleges inadequate statement of
         Commission of the European Communities                           reasons for the decision. According to the applicant, the
                                                                          Commission did not investigate the complaint on the basis of
                                                                          Article 82 of the EC Treaty and did not provide reasons for the
                        (Case T-193/02)                                   rejection of that part of the complaint. According to the
                                                                          applicant, FIFA holds a dominant position in the market in
                                                                          football and abuses its position in the related market in services
                                                                          linked to player transfers.
                        (2002/C 219/51)
                                                                          The applicant further alleges error of assessment in that, in his
                   (Language of the case: French)                         view, FIFA’s rules do not comply with Article 81 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty and that those rules cannot benefit from an exemption
                                                                          under Article 81(3).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also claims that the Commission infringed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Article 49 of the EC Treaty. In his view, the Commission does
European Communities on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau,                     not have the power implicitly to confer a power to lay down
residing in Nantes (France), represented by Marguerite Faucon-            rules on the awarding of diplomas on FIFA.
net, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 April 2002;
                                                                          Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen
—     order the Commission to pay the cost.                               GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-196/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 219/52)
On 23 March 1998, the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Commission arguing that the rules applied by FIFA to players’                              (Language of the Case: German)
agents were contrary to Community law. That complaint was
registered by the Commission which then carried out a
thorough investigation. Having heard no more as to progress
on his case, the applicant on 31 January 2001 placed the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Commission on notice and on 31 May 2001 brought an action
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for failure to act (Case T-121/00 OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30). On
                                                                          European Communities on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichs-
3 August 2001 the Commission wrote to the applicant
informing him of its intention not to uphold his complaint.               hafen GmbH of Friedrichshafen (Germany), represented by
                                                                          F. Montag and T. Lüubig, Lawyers.
After receiving the applicant’s comments, the Commission
rejected the applicant’s complaint in view of the fact that the
most restrictive provisions were repealed after proceedings
were initiated. In the present case, the applicant contests that          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision.
                                                                          —     annul Article 3(2) of the Commission’s Decision of
                                                                                9 April 2002 on German State aid to SKL Motoren- und
                                                                                Systembautechnik GmbH in so far as Germany is required
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,
                                                                                by those provisions to recover a sum of EUR 2,71 million
manifest error of assessment of the facts and of the law.
                                                                                (DEM 5,30 million) from MTU Motoren- und Turbinen-
According to the applicant, the Commission’s statement that
                                                                                Union Friedrichshafen GmbH;
the most restrictive of the provisions of FIFA’s rules have been
repealed is wrong. Furthermore, other aspects of the rules have
not been correctly assessed either.                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-491/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
   (Case C-491/12)
   2013/C 79/07
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

               2.

               Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

               3.

               Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?


title: Opinion 2/15: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/18

         Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 2/15)
   (2015/C 363/22)
   Language of procedure: all the official languages

      Applicant

   European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, B. De Meester, M. Kocjan, R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Question submitted to the Court

   Does the Union have the requisite competence to sign and conclude alone the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore? More specifically:

               —

               Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s exclusive competence?

               —

               Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s shared competence? and

               —

               Is there any provision of the agreement that falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States?


title: Case T-364/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Duravit and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Single and continuous infringement — Burden of proof — Fines — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Duravit and Others v Commission
   (Case T-364/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Single and continuous infringement - Burden of proof - Fines - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis)
   2013/C 325/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Duravit AG (Hornberg, Germany); Duravit SA (Bischwiller, France); and Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: R. Bechtold, U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Antoniadis, Agents, assisted by P. Thyri, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls point (8) of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as the European Commission finds that Duravit AG, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA and Duravit SA participated in an infringement in Italy, Austria and the Netherlands;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Duravit AG, Duravit BeLux and Duravit SA to bear three quarters of their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Duravit AG, Duravit BeLux and Duravit SA and to bear its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case F-7/12: Action brought on 16th January 2012 — ZZ v European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/30

         Action brought on 16th January 2012 — ZZ v European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
   (Case F-7/12)
   2012/C 133/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the 2009 career report, the list of reclassification of the civil servants for 2010 and, if necessary, the annulment of the decision rejecting his demand on 17 October 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the Applicant’s 2009 career development report;

               —

               the annulment of the 16 November 2010 decision fixing the list of staff reclassified in the reclassification exercise 2010;

               —

               if necessary, the annulment of the decision of 17 October 2011 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint dated 16 June 2011;

               —

               order ENISA to pay the costs.