title: Case T-661/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Italy v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/32

         Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-661/11)
   2012/C 49/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 7105 of 14 October 2011 in so far as it excludes from Community financing, and charges to the Italian Republic’s budget, certain expenditure incurred under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision challenged in this case results from two investigations initiated by the Commission, in respect of the milks years 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, and proposes in that regard an overall financial correction, to be borne by Italy, amounting to EUR 85 625 455.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               (a)

               Infringement and/or incorrect application of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (1) and of the Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee, document VI/5330/97 adopted on 23 December 1997, as well as infringement of Article 230 EC by reason of a misuse of powers.

         It is maintained in this regard that the application in the present case of a flat-rate correction should be challenged since it was possible, following the carrying out of controls, albeit in some cases belatedly, to identify possible ‘under-declarations’ and to impose penalties on the persons making false declarations, thereby recovering any additional levy that might be due and thus preventing financial damage being caused to Community funds as a result of a shortfall in receipts.

               (b)

               Infringement and/or incorrect application of Articles 21 and 22(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 (2).

         It is alleged in this regard that the legislation applicable in relation to controls on buyers establishes a correlation not on the basis of the number of buyers but on the basis of the percentage of milk which must be subject to controls and which must represent at least 40 % of the milk declared before correction for the period concerned. In fact, it is clear that the risk for the EAGGF financing system is closely linked to the total quantity of milk produced in each Member State. It is precisely on the basis of that volume that it is necessary to assess the risk of prejudice which may be caused to Community funds as a result of non-payment of the additional levy.

               (c)

               Infringement and/or incorrect application of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 and of the Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee, document VI/5330/97 adopted on 23 December 1997, as well as infringement of (i) the principle of proportionality and (ii) Article 230 EC on account of a misuse of powers.

         The applicant State submits that the Commission has used the financial correction percentage to estimate the possible overrun of the quota and the consequent levy, adding it to the overrun of the national production quota and dividing it up for re-allocation to the individual regions subject to controls for the clearance of accounts. If that type of approach is taken, the concept of financial correction becomes an arbitrary one with the consequent infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               (d)

               Finally, it is also alleged that Article 253 EC has been infringed or misapplied on the ground that no, or only inadequate, reasons have been stated.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22).


title: Case T-656/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler) (EU trade mark — Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a formwork coupler — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler)
   (Case T-656/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a formwork coupler - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 287/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Eck, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2014 (Case R 1178/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a formwork coupler as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-587/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Interspeed v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/17

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Interspeed v Commission
   (Case T-587/10)
   2011/C 89/40
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Interspeed Holding Kompanija, A.D. (Belgrade, Republic of Serbia) (represented by: Dr Marko Bošnjak)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for loss of profits, loss of income and reduction of the value of assets in the total amount of EUR 131 879 601, and additional sums comprising default interest on the damages claimed from the day this action was brought to the date of actual payment, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, brought pursuant to Articles 256 and 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for loss of profits, loss of income and reduction of the value of assets in the total amount of EUR 131 879 601, and additional sums comprising default interest on the damages claimed from the day the action was brought to the date of actual payment, calculated at the rate of interest applied by the European Central Bank at the relevant period to major financing transactions, increased by two percentage points, and also the lawyers’ fees and other legal costs incurred by the applicant in connection with these proceedings.
   If the Court should not uphold the action brought by the applicant, the latter claims that, as regards the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court should order each party to bear its own costs.
   In support of its action the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law.
   In the first place, the applicant maintains that the European Agency for Reconstruction (‘the EAR’) has acted unlawfully, in that:

               —

               on 19 December 2006 it issued a call for tenders;

               —

               on 22 December 2006 it published a notice for the selection of an undertaking to carry out work on the border crossing at Preševo;

               —

               on 10 May 2007 it concluded contract No 04SERO 1105004 for the execution of the works on the border crossing at Preševo;

               —

               it paid for the design of the reconstruction of the border crossing at Preševo;

               —

               it selected and paid Putevi Užice A.D. to carry out the works;

               —

               it selected and appointed E GIS BCEOM International s.a. as the inspecting body in respect of the reconstruction works and paid the sum of EUR 180 850 for the inspection service, in performance of contract No 06SERO 1102/008 171381 concluded on 16 December 2008 and contract No 04SERO 1105/00 1 162-954 concluded on 24 September 2004, for a total contractual amount of EUR 606 276,39;

               —

               it bought the equipment necessary for the border crossing (containers, barriers and so on);

               —

               it took part in the reconstruction as an investor, directly coordinated and monitored its investment through its office in Belgrade.

         In addition, the applicant maintains that, by those actions, the EAR unlawfully frustrated the applicant’s legitimate expectations and infringed the lawful and judicially protected rights that the applicant could exercise until December 2007 (so far as concerns the retail outlet) or until 7 May 2009 (so far as concerns rights relating to the goods-customs terminal). Those expectations and rights are the expression of the right to protection of property, which is, inter alia, one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
   Moreover, the applicant maintains that those actions of the EAR amount to a clear and serious breach of general legal principles which, in the circumstances of the case, are in essence: the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the right to protection of property, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency. The obviously serious nature of the breach is demonstrated, inter alia, by the amount of the loss sustained by the applicant.
   In the second place, the applicant maintains that the EAR’s conduct caused the financial loss to be incurred, as a result of:

               —

               loss of profits, because it was impossible for the applicant to receive income from the goods-customs terminal, a loss which amounts to EUR 56 838 141;

               —

               loss of profits, because it was impossible for the applicant to receive income from the sales outlet in the Preševo border crossing area, a loss amounting to EUR 46 800 000;

               —

               loss of income, because it was impossible for the applicant to receive rents for and other revenue from the shopping centre in the immediate vicinity of the Preševo border crossing, a loss amounting to EUR 42 681 600.

         In the third place, the applicant maintains that the loss sustained was unarguably caused by the ‘reconstruction’ activity in the Preševo border crossing area, planned and executed by the EAR.
   The applicant further argues that the EAR was fully aware of the fact that the applicant possessed the abovementioned rights in the Preševo border crossing area and that the EAR therefore deliberately breached the applicant’s rights.


title: Case C-516/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-47/10: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/22

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-47/10: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-516/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak, R. Wesseling, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Akcros Chemicals Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 in Case T-47/10 insofar as it holds that the fines originally imposed on Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. for their participation in the infringements can still be attributed to Akzo Nobel N.V. after the annulment of those fines by the General Court; and

               —

               annul the 2009 Decision insofar as it establishes the participation of Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and AkzoNobel Chemicals B.V. in the infringements, and in particular Article 1, section 1), (b) and Article 1, section 2) (b); and

               —

               annul the 2009 Decision insofar as it attributes liability and/or a fine to Akzo Nobel N.V. on account of the unlawful conduct of Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and AkzoNobel Chemicals B.V, and in particular Article 1, section 1), (a) for the period from 24 February 1987 to 28 June 1993 and Article 1, section 2) (a) for the period from 11 September 1991 to 28 June 1993 and/or Article 2, sections 6) and 23); or in the alternative

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 in Case T-47/10 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to make all necessary decisions on the merits; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court made an error of law in the application of rules concerning the liability of parent companies by concluding that the liability for the fines originally imposed on the subsidiaries but annulled by the General Court can still be attributed to Akzo Nobel N.V.
   In a situation such as the present case in which the liability of a parent company is purely derivative of that of its subsidiaries, the liability of that parent company cannot exceed the liability for which its subsidiaries are ultimately liable. As a result, the annulment of the fines imposed on Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. should have led to the annulment of the fine imposed on Akzo Nobel N.V.
   This is all the more pertinent in the case at hand where the annulment of the fines imposed on Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. should have also led to the annulment of the entire decision vis-à-vis these two legal entities.
   In 2011, following the judgment of the Court of Justice in the ArcelorMittal case, the Commission was confronted with the fact that its power to impose a fine on Elementis and Ciba/BASF was time-barred. The Commission then decided to repeal its entire 2009 decision in as far as addressed to any legal entity of these two groups of companies.
   If the Commission were to have taken the same approach concerning Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V., which were in the same position, the Commission would have repealed its decision finding that these entities participated in the infringement in the first place. If these same situations were to have been treated equally, the question of attribution of liability would have never occurred since there was no need or legal basis for attributing any liability for a fine to Akzo Nobel N.V. in the first place.


title: Case C-349/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-349/13)
   2013/C 274/07
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

      Question referred

   Should Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) and correspondingly the current Article 1(3), point (a) of the first subparagraph and the [second] subparagraph, of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (2) be interpreted as not precluding the imposition by a Member State of excise duty on lubricating oils falling within CN codes 2710 19 71 to 2710 19 99 used for purposes other than as motor fuels or heating fuels, in accordance with the rules relating to the harmonised excise duty imposed on the consumption of energy products?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.


title: Case C-487/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom — L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, trading as Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales , Starion International Ltd, (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Article 5(1) and (2) — Use in comparative advertising — Right to have such use prevented — Taking unfair advantage of the repute of a trade mark — Impairment of the functions of the trade mark — Directive 84/450/EEC — Comparative advertising — Article 3a(1)(g) and (h) — Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted — Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark — Presentation of goods as imitations or replicas)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom — L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, trading as ‘Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales’, Starion International Ltd,
   (Case C-487/07) (1)

   (Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade marks - Article 5(1) and (2) - Use in comparative advertising - Right to have such use prevented - Taking unfair advantage of the repute of a trade mark - Impairment of the functions of the trade mark - Directive 84/450/EEC - Comparative advertising - Article 3a(1)(g) and (h) - Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted - Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark - Presentation of goods as imitations or replicas)
   2009/C 180/09
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie

      Defendants: Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, trading as ‘Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales’, Starion International Ltd,

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal, Civil Division — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) and of Article 3a(1)(g) and (h) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Use by a trader, in advertising for his own goods or services, of a trade mark belonging to a competitor in order to compare the characteritics, in particular the smell, of the goods placed on the market by the competitor.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the taking of unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of a mark, within the meaning of that provision, does not require that there be a likelihood of confusion or a likelihood of detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor. The advantage arising from the use by a third party of a sign similar to a mark with a reputation is an advantage taken unfairly by that third party of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark where that party seeks by that use to ride on the coat-tails of the mark with a reputation in order to benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of that mark and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the mark’s image.

               2.

               Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is entitled to prevent the use by a third party, in a comparative advertisement which does not satisfy all the conditions, laid down in Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, under which comparative advertising is permitted, of a sign identical with that mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which that mark was registered, even where such use is not capable of jeopardising the essential function of the mark, which is to indicate the origin of the goods or services, provided that such use affects or is liable to affect one of the other functions of the mark.

               3.

               Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that an advertiser who states explicitly or implicitly in comparative advertising that the product marketed by him is an imitation of a product bearing a well-known trade mark presents ‘goods or services as imitations or replicas’ within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(h). The advantage gained by the advertiser as a result of such unlawful comparative advertising must be considered to be an advantage taken unfairly of the reputation of that mark within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(g).

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-46/17: Action brought on 26 January 2017 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigan (Pet Cuisine)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/39

         Action brought on 26 January 2017 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigan (Pet Cuisine)
   (Case T-46/17)
   (2017/C 078/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TDH Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Chen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comercial de Servicios Agrigan, SA (Huesca, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 1 203 373 in respect of figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pet Cuisine’

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2016 in Case R 685/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-213/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Helicopter support to the EULEX Kosovo mission — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/80

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo
   (Case T-213/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Helicopter support to the EULEX Kosovo mission - Rejection of the bid of a tenderer - No legal capacity to be a defendant - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 225/178
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Elitaliana SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Colagrande, lawyer)

      Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Firstly, application for annulment of the decision by Eulex Kosovo to award the contract to a tenderer other than the applicant in tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK’ concerning helicopter support to the EULEX Mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11) and, secondly, a claim for compensation against Eulex Kosovo for the loss purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

      Operative part

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Elitaliana SpA is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Case T-434/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council
   (Case T-434/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality)
   2013/C 304/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented initially by S. Ashley and S. Gadhia, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, lawyer, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley, H. Hohmann, D. Wyatt, R. Blakeley, and by S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Paasivirta and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, A. Robinson and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, and by J. Swift QC and R. Palmer, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65); secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26); thirdly, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); fourthly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11); and, fifthly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those acts concern Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank to bear three fifths of its own costs and to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               4.

               Orders the Council to bear two fifths of its own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank;

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-304/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/27

         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-304/04)
   (2004/C 251/51)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004) 1812 final of 19 May 2004 declaring unlawful aid granted by Italy (under Law No 394 of 1981) in the form of interest relief to WAM SpA of EUR 103 313.20 from 24 April 1996 and EUR 106 366.60 from 9 November 2000 (State aid No C 4/2003/(ex NN 102/2002), with order for recovery;

               —

               annul any other connected or conditional measure which may exist and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Italian Republic has challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Commission Decision C(2004) 1812 final of 19 May 2004 declaring unlawful aid granted by Italy (under Law No 394 of 1981) in the form of interest relief to WAM SpA of EUR 103 313.20 from 24 April 1996 and EUR 106 366.60 from 9 November 2000 (State aid No C 4/2003/(ex NN 102/2002), with order for recovery. Law No 394 of 1981 supports, inter alia, Italian companies wishing to set up a subsidiary, representative offices, shops and warehouses.
   In support of its claim, the Italian Republic has pleaded:

               (A)

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements as regards the right of defence, the principle of transparency and the principle of the right to be heard, since the Commission has never sent Italy a copy of the complaint in the proceedings.

               (B)

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements as regards the right of defence and failure adequately to state reasons for lack of preliminary inquiries, since the Commission failed to carry out the necessary investigations into the complaint and the subsequent measures using the powers granted to it under procedural Regulation No 659/1999 (1).

               (C)

               Error by the Commission in classifying the facts and infringement of Article 1(b) of Regulations No 69/2001 (2) and 70/2001 (3) since it classified the aid in question as ‘export aid’.

               (D)

               Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and good faith, since the Commission contested the failure to communicate the aid, even though it was aware of Law No 394/81. On the contrary, the aim of the aid in question is not directly export-related, although its principal aim is internationalisation through the creation of fixed production bases abroad.

               (E)

               Infringement of Article 87 et seq of the EC Treaty and failure adequately to state reasons. It is claimed that in the contested decision the Commission never explains why and to what extent aid such as that in question, which is individual and for a very low amount, is capable of having an effect on trade between Member States. Nor does the defendant explain on what evidence it bases its claim of the risk of distortion of competition within the Community, above all with respect to aid which is very limited in amount.

               (F)

               Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 69/2001 and failure adequately to state reasons, since the Commission applied that provision retroactively to circumstances governed by the rules previously in force.

               (G)

               Failure adequately to state reasons, illogicality, infringement of the principle of fairness and wrongful application of Regulation No 69/2001 and Regulation No 70/2001, since the Commission adjusted the amount of the aid to be returned according to criteria which should be regarded as irrelevant and erroneous.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.01.2001, p. 30).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.01.2001, p. 30).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2003 in Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Multisectorial framework on regional aid for large investment projects — Application for correction of a decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common market — Commission response — Not in the nature of a decision — Application for annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
7.2.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 35/9
2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the installation          1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      allowance provided for by Article 5 of Annex VII of the Staff
      Regulations, amounting to two months’ basic salary, together         2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
      with default interest from 24 January 2002. The interest rate
      to be applied shall be two points higher than the rate fixed by
      the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations
                                                                           (1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.
      applicable during the period concerned.
3.    Orders the Parliament to bear all the costs.
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 November 2003
                                                                           in Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure
                                                                           to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
                       of 5 November 2003                                  procedure — Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 —
                                                                                Action manifestly inadmissible)
in Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                    (2004/C 35/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(State aid — Multisectorial framework on regional aid for
large investment projects — Application for correction of a
decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common
market — Commission response — Not in the nature of a
   decision — Application for annulment — Inadmissible)                    In Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S, established in Glostrup
                                                                           (Denmark), represented by J.S. Ørndrup, lawyer, against Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2004/C 35/13)                                  Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Waelbroek), the intervener before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance being Scala Inc., established in
                                                                           Exton, Pennsylvania (United States of America), represented by
                                                                           R.M. Hiddleston, solicitor — action brought against the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 27 May 2002 (Case R 830/2001-1) on the refusal
                                                                           of an opposition for failure to substantiate rights based on
                                                                           earlier trade marks — the Court of First Instance (Second
In Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, whose registered                 Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and
office is in Heiligengrabe, Germany, originally represented by             N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
B. Luther and subsequently by R. Nierer, lawyers, against the              17 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di
Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for annulment of the
alleged decision of the Commission of 5 February 2002 not to               1.    The action is dismissed.
correct its decision of 3 July 2001 relating to the authorisation
of State aid in the sum of DEM 69,3 million to the applicant               2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
for an investment in Heiligengrabe, Germany — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed, at the time of its deliberation, of V. Tiili, President,         (1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.
and J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 November
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-145/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — Directive 89/48/EEC — Access to and practice of the profession of lawyer)

text:
C 109/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            4.5.2002
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings               U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri): Application for a declaration
before that court against Manuele Arduino, third parties: Diego            that:
Dessi, Giovanni Bertolotto, and Compagnia Assicuratrice RAS
SpA, on the interpretation of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81 EC), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von            —     by maintaining, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,                        (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC), the general
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                       prohibition whereby lawyers established in other Member
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                       States and practising in Italy in the exercise of their
P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                  freedom to provide services cannot have in that State the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in                          infrastructure needed to provide their services,
which it has ruled:
Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC)          —     by making enrolment at the Italian Bar conditional upon
do not preclude a Member State from adopting a law or regulation                 the possession of Italian nationality, the possession of
which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional               qualifications acquired only in Italy and maintenance of a
body of members of the Bar, a tariff fixing minimum and maximum                  residence in an Italian judicial district, contrary to
fees for members of the profession, where that State measure forms               Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
part of a procedure such as that laid down in Royal Decree-Law                   Article 43 EC),
No 1578 of 27 November 1933, as amended.
                                                                           —     by applying in a discriminatory manner against lawyers
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                                       from other Member States the ‘compensatory measures’
                                                                                (aptitude test) provided for in Article 4 of Council
                                                                                Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                                system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
                                                                                awarded on completion of professional education and
                                                                                training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19,
                                                                                p. 16), and
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     —     by incompletely transposing Directive 89/48, inasmuch
                                                                                as no rules have been laid down regulating the conduct
                                                                                of the aptitude test for lawyers from other Member States,
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                        the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty and Directive
                                                                                89/48,
                           7 March 2002
in Case C-145/99: Commission of the European Communi-                      the Court (Fifth Chamber), C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                           L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — Directive 89/48/EEC —
       Access to and practice of the profession of lawyer)                 1.    Declares that:
                          (2002/C 109/03)
                                                                                —     by maintaining, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                                (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC), the general
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                    prohibition whereby lawyers established in other Member
                                                                                States and practising in Italy in the exercise of their
                                                                                freedom to provide services cannot have in that State the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                 infrastructure needed to provide their services,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                —     by requiring members of the Bar to reside in the judicial
                                                                                district of the court to which the Bar at which they are
In Case C-145/99, Commission of the European Communities                               enrolled is attached, contrary to Article 52 of the EC
(Agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (Agent:                         Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), and
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/3
      —     by incompletely transposing Council Directive                  hereinafter ‘Rönfeldt’) to unemployment benefit and, secondly,
            89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system              the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty (now,
            for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 42 EC), the Court (Sixth
            on completion of professional education and training of        Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
            at least three years’ duration, inasmuch as no rules have      N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
            been laid down to regulate the conduct of the aptitude test    V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
            for lawyers from other Member States,                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which
                                                                           it has ruled:
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty and Directive 89/48;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           1.    The principles laid down by the Court in Rönfeldt (Case
3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the                      C-277/89) permitting non-application of the provisions of
      European Communities to bear their own costs.                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June
                                                                                1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                        persons and their families moving within the Community, to
                                                                                allow for continued application of a bilateral convention which
                                                                                that regulation would otherwise have replaced to a worker who
                                                                                is a national of a Member State also apply where the worker
                                                                                exercised the right to freedom of movement before the regulation
                                                                                entered into force and before the EC Treaty became applicable
                                                                                in his Member State of origin.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                           2.    If periods of insurance or employment that entitle a worker who
                                                                                is a national of a Member State to the unemployment benefit
                          5 February 2002                                        claimed by him began to run before the entry into force of
                                                                                Regulation No 1408/71, his situation must be assessed in the
in Case C-277/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        light of the provisions of the bilateral convention for the entire
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Doris Kaske v Landesge-                             period during which he was exercising his right to freedom of
        schäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (1)                           movement, and taking into account all the periods of insurance
                                                                                or employment completed by him regardless of whether those
(Social security for migrant workers — Unemployment                              periods preceded or succeeded the entry into force of the Treaty
insurance — Replacing social security conventions concluded                      and of Regulation No 1408/71 in his Member State of origin.
between Member States with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                           If, however, after having exhausted all his rights under the
— Preservation of advantages enjoyed previously as a result                      convention, he exercises his right to freedom of movement anew,
of a combination of domestic law and the law of the relevant                     and if he completes further periods of insurance or employment
           convention — Free movement of workers)                                entirely after the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71,
                                                                                his new situation is governed by that regulation.
                           (2002/C 109/04)
                    (Language of the case: German)                         3.    National law may contain more favourable rules than Com-
                                                                                munity law provided that they comply with the principles of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           Community law. A rule in a Member State which, for the
                    in the European Court Reports)                               purposes of the criteria for entitlement to unemployment benefit,
                                                                                favours workers who spent 15 years in that Member State
                                                                                before their last employment abroad is incompatible with
                                                                                Article 48 of the Treaty.
In Case C-277/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Doris Kaske and Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice
Wien, on the possible application of a convention relating
to unemployment insurance concluded between the Federal                    (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Republic of Germany and the Republic of Austria on unem-
ployment benefit, in place of Articles 3, 6, 67 and 71 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), by extending the
decision in Rönfeldt (Case C-227/89 [1991] ECR I-323,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-245/92 P: Chemie Linz GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Reopening of the oral procedure - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission)

text:
C 333/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.11.1999
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                         of 8 July 1999
                                                                        in Case C-245/92 P: Chemie Linz GmbH v Commission of
in Case C-234/92 P: Shell International Chemical Com-                                    the European Communities (1)
pany Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
(Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance             — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
— Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules                  of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by                        the College of Members of the Commission)
          the College of Members of the Commission)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/11)
                        (1999/C 333/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-234/92 P: Shell International Chemical Company                                   in the European Court Reports)
Ltd, whose registered office is in London, United Kingdom,
represented by K.B. Parker QC, instructed by J.W. Osborne,
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             In Case C-245/92 P: Chemie Linz GmbH, whose registered
Chambers of J. Hoss, 15 Côte d’Eich, supported by DSM NV,               office is in Linz, Austria, represented by O. Lieberknecht,
whose registered office is in Heerlen, Netherlands, represented         Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in        Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Bonn, 22 Côte d’Eich,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains              supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in Heerlen,
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance            Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar,
of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 10 March                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1992 in Case T-11/89 Shell v Commission [1992] ECR II-757,              L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains — appeal against the judgment
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the proceedings being the Commission of the European                    (First Chamber) of 10 March 1992 in Case T-15/89 Chemie
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),            Linz v Commission [1992] ECR II-1275, seeking to have that
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                  judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Rag-           the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. zur
nemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Hol-                Hausen) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
stein, Deputy Registrar and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal              P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               cini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
8 July 1999, in which it:                                               G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-
                                                                        trar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                it:
2. Orders Shell International Chemical Company Ltd to pay the           1. Dismisses the appeal;
    costs;
                                                                        2. Orders Chemie Linz GmbH to pay the costs;
3. Orders DSM NV to bear its own costs.
                                                                        3. Orders DSM NV to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 187 of 24.7.1992.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 212 of 18.8.1992.


title: Case C-32/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt, Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft, Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., the legal successor of the Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Application of similar national regulations — Jurisdiction of the Court — Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and car repairers relating to hourly repair charges — Charges paid depending on the number of insurance contracts concluded for the insurance company by those repairers in their capacity as brokers — Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’ )

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt, Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft, Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., the legal successor of the Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal
   (Case C-32/11) (1)

   (Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Application of similar national regulations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and car repairers relating to hourly repair charges - Charges paid depending on the number of insurance contracts concluded for the insurance company by those repairers in their capacity as brokers - Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’)
   2013/C 141/03
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt, Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft, Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., the legal successor of the Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft

      Defendant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU — Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and certain car repairers under which the hourly repair charge paid by the insurance company to those repairers depends on the number and scale of insurance policies taken out with the insurance company by the repairer, as the insurance broker for the insurance company in question — National legislation relying on a concept analogous to a concept of Union law — Concept of ‘agreements which have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements whereby car insurance companies come to bilateral arrangements, either with car dealers acting as car repair shops or with an association representing those dealers, concerning the hourly charge to be paid by the insurance company for repairs to vehicles insured by it, stipulating that that charge depends, inter alia, on the number and percentage of insurance contracts that the dealer has sold as intermediary for that company, can be considered to be a restriction of competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of that provision, where, following a concrete and individual examination of the wording and aim of those agreements and of the economic and legal context of which they form a part, it is apparent that they are, by their very nature, injurious to the proper functioning of normal competition on one of the two markets concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia of the Community of Extremadura by orders of that court of 17 January 1996 and 15 January 1996 in the cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Francisco Mateos v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v. Laura García Lázaro (Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 95/9
      question 1(a ), and if so what would be the effect on the                  References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal Superior
      answers to those questions ?                                               de Justicia of the Community of Extremadura by orders of
                                                                                that court of 17 January 1996 and 15 January 1996 in the
3 . ( a ) If the requests for further information and the other                  cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la
            requirements described in question 1 above, or any                   Seguridad Social, Francisco Mateos v. Instituto Nacional de
            of them, are prima facie permissible under Council                   la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad
            Directive 81 /851 /EEC and 81 /852/EEC, must such                    Social, and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v.
            requests and requirements comply with the                                                  Laura García Lázaro
            Community law principle of proportionality ?                                     ( Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 )
      ( b ) If the answer to ( a ) is affirmative, are those                                                 ( 96/C 95/ 14 )
            principles to be applied in this case by the national
            court or by the Court of Justice ?                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
      (c )    ( i ) If they are to be applied by the Court of                    de Justicia ( High Court of Justice ) of the Community of
                      Justice, do the said requests and requirements
                                                                                Extremadura of 17 January 1996 ( Cases C-31 /96 and
                      or any of them infringe the principles of                  C-32/96 ) and of 15 January 1996 ( Case C-33/96 ), which
                      proportionality ?                                          were received at the Court Registry on 7 February 1996 , for
                                                                                preliminary rulings in the cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona
            ( ii ) If they are to be applied by the national court,
                                                                                v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( National Social
                      by reference to what criteria and
                                                                                Security Institute ), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto
                      considerations must the proportionality of the
                                                                                Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la
                      requests and requirements be assessed ?
                                                                                Seguridad Social ( General Social Security Fund ), and
4 . Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted                     Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v. Laura Garcia
      as prohibiting requests and requirements such as those                     Lazaro on the following question :
      described above, or any of them ?
                                                                                when Article 47 ( 1 ) ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( J )
5 . ( a ) Is Article 40 of Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC to be                  — now Article 47 ( 1 ) (g ) — uses the phrase ' shall determine
            interpreted as applying to the requests and                          that average by reference only to those periods of insurance
            requirements described above ?                                       completed under the legislation of the said State ', is it to be
                                                                                construed as referring to :
      ( b ) If so, in what circumstances and by reference to
            what criteria are the reasons for the imposition of
            such requests and requirements to be treated as                      1 . the theoretical maximum, minimum or average basis for
            inadequate for the purposes of Article 40 , and were                      the time being laid down by the legislation of a Member
            such requests and requirements adequately                                 State for payment of the relevant social security
            reasoned in the present case ?                                           contributions; or
6 . ( a ) Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community                      2 . the average of the actual bases of what was actually
            law to compensate an undertaking in damages for                          contributed by the person concerned, regardless of what
            loss which it has suffered as a consequence of the                        he would have had to contribute in the periods worked
            imposition of requests and requirements such as                           in Spain in accordance with the legislation of that
            those described above which :                                             State ?
                ( i ) are incompatible with the provisions of
                       Council    Directives   81 /851 /EEC           and/or     (') OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                       81 /852/EEC ;
              ( ii ) infringe the principles of proportionality;
            ( iii ) are prohibited by Articles 30 to 36 of the EC
                       Treaty;
            ( iv ) are insufficiently reasoned within the meaning                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                       of Article 40 of Directive 81 /851 /EEC ?                 Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                                order of that court of 24 January 1996 in criminal
      ( b ) If the answer to question 6(a ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) and ( iv ) or               proceedings against Maria Paolantoni
            any of them is in the affirmative, under what                                                   Case C-34/96 )
            condition does such liability arise ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/ 15 )
t 1 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p. 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 16 .                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                                Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli


title: Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/12

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers
   (2004/C 251/23)
   On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided to establish five Chambers of five Judges and five Chambers of three Judges for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005 and to assign Judges to them as follows:
   First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges
   First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Cooke, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges
   Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges
   Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Mr Meij and Ms Pelikánová, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Forwood et Mr Papasavvas, Judges

         Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges
   Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Ms Tiili and Mr Czúcz, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Azizi and Ms Cremona, Judges

         Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Mr Mengozzi, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Vadapalas, Judges
   Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Legal, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Ms Lindh and Mr Vadapalas, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Mengozzi and Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges

         Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges
   Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Jürimäe, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Dehousse and Mr Šváby, Judges

         In the First Chamber sitting with three Judges, the Judges who sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the Chamber will be designated in turn, in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, subject to the presence of connected cases. In the Second to Fifth Chambers sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit either with the Judges referred to at (a) above or with those referred to at (b) above, depending on which of those formations the Judge-Rapporteur belongs to. For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of one or other of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the presence of connected cases.
   Cases in which the Judge-Rapporteur is assigned to another Chamber as a result of the amendment of the composition of the Chambers shall be reallocated, with effect from 13 September 2004, to the Chamber to which the Judge-Rapporteur belongs from that date.
   In cases where the written procedure was completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before 13 September 2004, the Chamber shall continue to sit with the same composition as previously for the oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.
   Composition of the Grand Chamber
   On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005 the Grand Chamber shall be composed of: Mr Vesterdorf, President of the Court of First Instance; Mr Jaeger, Mr Pirrung, Mr Vilaras and Mr Legal, Presidents of Chambers; the Judges of the Chamber (Extended Composition) who would have had to hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed of five Judges; and four other Judges designated by the President of the Court of First Instance in turn from among the Judges of each of the other Chambers, in the order of precedence of those Judges within their Chambers according to seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   As regards cases where the written procedure was completed and, in the oral procedure, a hearing before the Grand Chamber was held or fixed before 13 September 2004, the Grand Chamber shall continue to sit with the same composition as previously for the oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.
   Plenary session
   On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that where, following the designation of an Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance in accordance with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in reverse order to the order in which the Judges rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it is the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
   Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing an application for interim measures
   On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge García-Valdecasas to replace the President of the Court of First Instance for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005.
   Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
   On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance laid down criteria as follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure.

               1.

               Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.

               2.

               Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following four separate rotas, namely:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;

                           —

                           for cases concerning intellectual property rights, as envisaged by Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

         In applying those rotas, the First Chamber shall not be taken into consideration at each fifth turn.
   The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case T-81/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — Enercon v OHIM (E-Ship) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark E-Ship — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — Enercon v OHIM (E-Ship)
   (Case T-81/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark E-Ship - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 141/83
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm and V. Henke, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2007 (Case R 319/2007-1), relating to an application for registration of the sign E-ship as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-288/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of AB against Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of AB against Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk
   (Case C-288/04)
   (2004/C 251/04)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat (Independent Tax Chamber) (Austria), of 28 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of AB against Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk.
   The Unabhängiger Finanzsenat asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities preclude the taxation in the Member States of the salaries, wages and emoluments which the Communities pay to their officials and other servants only if the European Communities exercise their right of taxation?

               2.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities preclude the taxation in the Member States of the salaries, wages and emoluments which the Communities pay to their officials and other servants only if those officials or other servants are listed in a communication within the meaning of that article, and does a communication forwarded on the basis of that article automatically entitle the tax authorities of the Member State to exercise the national right of taxation in respect of officials and other servants not listed in that communication and thus in respect of those servants whom the European Communities regard as local staff?


title: Case C-125/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200, S.L. and Others

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200, S.L. and Others
   (Case C-125/12)
   2012/C 174/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200, S.L., Ignacio Alba Muñoz, administrator of the insolvency of Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 S.L., and Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (State tax administration)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, providing as it does that ‘1. Member States may provide that the person liable for payment of VAT is the taxable person to whom any of the following supplies are made: … (g) the supply of immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale procedure’, be interpreted, in court proceedings that are creditor proceedings initiated by a declaration as to the insolvency of that debtor, to the effect that it refers only to transfers which strictly reflect the fact that the proceedings are liquidation proceedings or that they have reached the phase of liquidation, with the result that the disposal of such immovable property must take place as a consequence of the liquidation of all the debtor’s assets, or, given that insolvency proceedings may end, among other possibilities, with the liquidation of the insolvent undertaking, does it also cover any transfers of immovable property carried out in the course of insolvency proceedings by a debtor declared insolvent?

               2.

               Must Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted to the effect that the ‘compulsory sale procedure’ to which it refers includes a collective judicial insolvency procedure in which there has been a voluntary sale, unconnected with any phase of compulsory liquidation of the debtor’s assets and for reasons merely of timeliness, of any one or more of its assets; or, on the contrary, does it refer only to sales ordered in enforcement proceedings intended to liquidate the assets of the judgment debtor?

               3.

               In the latter case, if Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax refers strictly to sales in enforcement proceedings intended to liquidate the assets of a judgment debtor, may that provision be interpreted as excluding reversal of the position regarding the taxable person for VAT purposes in any case where immovable property is transferred by a debtor declared insolvent because such transfer is timely and conducive to the interests of the insolvency and the transfer is unconnected with any procedure for liquidation of all the debtor’s assets, with the result that it is necessary to disapply a national law which has extended the material scope of Article 199(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 to cases which that provision does not contemplate?

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-47/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2013 — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2013 — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
   (Case C-47/13)
   2013/C 108/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin Grund

      Defendant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

      Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Question referred

   Is agricultural land permanent pasture within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the regulation (1) if used currently and for at least five years for the cultivation of grass or other herbaceous forage but during this period the area has been ploughed and instead of the previous herbaceous forage (in this case clover) another herbaceous forage (in this case field grass) sown, or do such cases constitute a crop rotation precluding the creation of permanent pasture?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


10.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/23
2. order the defendant to pay the costs.                                        Removal from the register of Case C-218/99 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 163/43)
In the Commission’s view, the practice followed in Austria
does not accord with the principle of proportionality (Article           By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of
30 EC). That practice fails to take account of the fact that             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
vitamins and mineral nutrients may be harmful to a greater or            from the register of Case C-218/99: Commission of the
lesser degree. It would be less restrictive to fix a limit for each      European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
individual mineral nutrient and to require any preparation
with a nutrient content in excess of that limit to be classified         (1) OJ C 266 of 7.8.1999.
as a medicinal product. It seems too sweeping, therefore, to
take the daily dose alone as the determining criterion.
At the same time, the practice referred to fails to take account
of the fact that the Member State concerned is required to
state, in relation to each individual product, that it constitutes
a serious health risk. It is unacceptable to require the applicant
to prove that a substance is not harmful, since it is for the                   Removal from the register of Case C-361/99 (1)
Member State itself to show that a higher concentration
presents a health risk where the critical limits accepted by the                                 (2000/C 163/44)
scientific bodies are not reached.
                                                                         By order of 16 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-361/99 (reference for a preliminary
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/99 (1)                    ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien):
                         (2000/C 163/41)                                 Silveria Gäng v Republic of Austria.
By order of 13 March 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal              (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
from the register of Case C-406/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-438/98 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-221/98 (1)                                            (2000/C 163/45)
                         (2000/C 163/42)
                                                                         By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the First Chamber
By order of 14 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has                  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-438/98:
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-221/98:                  Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.                Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 278 of 14.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-30/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/8

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV
      (Case C-30/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right - Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database)
      (2015/C 073/10)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

         Defendant: PR Aviation BV

         Operative part of the judgment

      Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a database which is not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that Articles 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive do not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law.

         (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-165/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member State — Parent having sole care of two minor children, who are Union citizens — First child possessing the nationality of the Member State of residence — Second child possessing the nationality of another Member State — National legislation precluding grant of a residence permit to the father because of his criminal record — Refusal of residence capable of resulting in the children being obliged to leave the territory of the European Union)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-165/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member State - Parent having sole care of two minor children, who are Union citizens - First child possessing the nationality of the Member State of residence - Second child possessing the nationality of another Member State - National legislation precluding grant of a residence permit to the father because of his criminal record - Refusal of residence capable of resulting in the children being obliged to leave the territory of the European Union))
   (2016/C 419/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

      Respondent: Administración del Estado

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record where he is the parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen and a national of a Member State other than the host Member State and who is his dependant and resides with him in the host Member State.
   Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the same national legislation which requires a third-country national who is a parent of minor children who are Union citizens in his sole care to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record, where that refusal has the consequence of requiring those children to leave the territory of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.