title: Case T-347/12 P: Appeal brought on 8 January 2013 by Dana Mocová against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Mocová v Commission

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/17

         Appeal brought on 8 January 2013 by Dana Mocová against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Mocová v Commission
   (Case T-347/12 P)
   2013/C 86/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Dana Mocová (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Dana Mocová v European Commission;

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the request for renewal of the appellant’s contract;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as regards the scope of the principle of legality, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) considered, first, that the reasons given by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) at the stage at which the complaint was rejected can be substituted for and alter the reasons given when the appellant’s request for extension of her contract as a member of the temporary staff was rejected and, second, that the reasoning is valid even those it is based on factors established after the contested measure was adopted. The appellant submits that:

                           —

                           if, in the present case, the appellant’s contract was not renewed on account of the rule prohibiting cumulative periods of service of more than eight years, the AECE was not subsequently entitled to state, in its response to the complaint, that the contract had not been renewed on account of budgetary constraints, the appellant’s merits and the interests of the service, and then go on to claim, before the Tribunal, that the only reason for non-renewal was budgetary constraints;

                           —

                           the CST is required, contrary to what is stated at paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal, to examine the plea of illegality in respect of the eight year rule, a plea which was raised when the request for extension of the contract as a temporary member of staff was rejected.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, on the basis that the CST took the view that the AECE had taken the contested decision with due regard to the interests of the service, even though the CST stated that the Commission had acknowledged at the hearing that only budgetary constraints could have been invoked at first instance as justification for the contested decision. The appellant also submits that the CST failed to have regard to its duty to state reasons and its duty to examine all the breaches of law alleged before it, in that it failed to make any reference to the appellant’s arguments concerning the contradiction between the reasons given relating to the laying off of staff due to budgetary constraints and the creation of new posts for temporary staff at Grade AD9.


title: Case T-58/07: Action brought on 23 February 2007 — BYK-Chemie v OHIM — (Substance for Success)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/48

         Action brought on 23 February 2007 — BYK-Chemie v OHIM — (Substance for Success)
   (Case T-58/07)
   (2007/C 95/96)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: BYK-Chemie (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Kroher and A. Hettenkofer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 9 January 2007 in Case R0816/2006-04;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Substance for success ’for goods and services in Classes 1, 40-42 (Application No 3 660 552).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) as the registered trade mark is neither devoid of the necessary distinctive character nor is to be reserved for use in trade.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-340/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Carlito Abler and Others v Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft mbH, intervener Sanrest Großküchen Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (Social policy — Approximation of laws — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of workers' rights — Directive 77/187/EEC — Scope — Definition of transfer)

text:
C 7/12                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      available to it by the contracting authority, even where the second
                                                                             contractor has expressed the intention not to take on the employees of
                                                                             the first contractor.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                       of 20 November 2003
in Case C-340/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Carlito Abler and Others
v Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft mbH, intervener                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Sanrest Großküchen Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Social policy — Approximation of laws — Transfers of
undertakings — Safeguarding of workers’ rights — Direc-                                              of 20 November 2003
     tive 77/187/EEC — Scope — Definition of transfer)
                                                                             in Case C-356/01: Republic of Austria v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                            (2004/C 7/18)
                                                                             (System of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting
                                                                             through Austria — Refusal by the Commission to reduce the
                   (Language of the case: German)                                        number of ecopoints for 2001 — Legality)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/19)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-340/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-356/01, Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi) v
Carlito Abler and Others and Sodexho MM Catering Gesell-                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
schaft mbH, intervener Sanrest Großküchen Betriebsgesell-                    C. Schmidt and M. Wolfcarius), supported by Federal Republic
schaft mbH, on the interpretation of Council Directive 77/                   of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted
187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the                      by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt): Application for annulment of
laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of                    the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 refusing to submit
employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,                 a draft regulation reducing the number of ecopoints for 2001
businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26), the                 and, in the alternative, of the Commission’s decision of the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting as                    same date to distribute all the remaining ecopoints for 2001,
President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-                    the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;               for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Admin-                (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 Novem-               Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             20 November 2003, in which it:
Article 1 of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977                1.     Dismisses the application.
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of           2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as
applying to a situation in which a contracting authority which had           3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
awarded the contract for the management of the catering services in a
hospital to one contractor terminates that contract and concludes a
contract for the supply of the same services with a second contractor,       (1) OJ C 317 of 10.10.2001.
where the second contractor uses substantial parts of the tangible
assets previously used by the first contractor and subsequently made


title: Case T-92/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/62

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission
   (Case T-92/10)
   2010/C 113/94
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy) and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, lawyer, S. Amoruso, lawyer, L. Vitolo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, adopted on 30 September 2009 in Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption, as corrected and completed by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it finds that Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA had infringed Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and imposes upon them, jointly and severally, a fine of EUR 10.25 million;
               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, by which the penalty is imposed on the applicants;
               in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in other actions challenging Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final. In particular, the applicants allege:

               —

               following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, lack of competence on the part of the Commission to penalise the infringement of Article 65 of that Treaty and, in any event, to use Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) as a legal basis;

               —

               breach of the applicants’ rights of defence during the procedure before the Commission;

               —

               infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as the facts described in Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final do not indicate a single and continuous offence;

               —

               breach of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality;

         On that last point, it is argued in particular that it was unlawful to place the applicants in the first category of undertakings, which were given the higher basic fine, since, in calculating the amount of the fine, the Commission misapplied the criterion of the undertaking’s specific weight on the market and did not uniformly apply the criterion of the undertaking’s overall size. Furthermore, the manner of conducting the procedure for calculating the fine was also incorrect with regard to the evaluation of the ‘attenuating circumstances’. Lastly, the excessive lengthiness of the procedure seriously compromised the right to an impartial ruling within a reasonable time.

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


title: Case C-308/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (España) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (España) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu
   (Case C-308/15)
   (2015/C 279/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Defendants: Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, for the restitutory effects derived from a declaration on grounds of unfairness of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ included in a loan agreement not to be applied retroactively from the date of conclusion of the agreement but rather from a later date?

               2.

               Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

               3.

               If so, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith?

               4.

               At all events, is it compatible with the criterion of good faith for the actions of a seller or supplier, in creating the agreement, to have been the cause of a lack of transparency making the term unfair?

               5.

               Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

               6.

               If so, what criteria ought to be taken into account?

               7.

               Must the risk of serious difficulties be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under that ‘floor clause’?

               8.

               Is it compatible with the principle that consumers are not bound by unfair terms, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC, and with the right to effective judicial protection affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) for the same limitation of the restitutory effects deriving from the nullity of a ‘floor clause’, declared in proceedings brought by a consumers’ association against financial bodies, to be automatically extended to individual actions for a declaration that a ‘floor clause’ is void because unfair brought by consumer customers who have concluded a mortgage loan with other financial bodies?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-529/15: Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (START UP INITIATIVE)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/37

         Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (START UP INITIATIVE)
   (Case T-529/15)
   (2015/C 371/38)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin (TO), Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘START UP INITIATIVE’ — Application for registration No 13 011 838

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 2777/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs and fees incurred for the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-280/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2011 in Case T-233/09: Access Info Europe v Council of the European Union

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/6

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2011 in Case T-233/09: Access Info Europe v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-280/11 P)
   2011/C 238/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, B. Driessen, Cs. Fekete, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Access Info Europe, Hellenic Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgement by which the General Court annulled the Council's decision of refusing public access to the requested document;

               —

               give a final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and

               —

               order the Applicant in Case T-233/09 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   At the outset, the Council would like to recall that the adoption of the contested decision, on 26 February 2009, pre-dates the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009. Accordingly, the applicable Treaty framework for the purposes of the present action is the one established by the Treaty on European Union and Treaty establishing the European Community, prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
   The Council respectfully submits that first, the General Court has erred in law in its interpretation and application of the exception laid down in Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), since its findings are inconsistent with the applicable Treaty provisions, and in particular, disregard the limits of the principle of wider access of the institutions' legislative activities set by the Treaty and reflected by secondary law, on account of the preservation of the effectiveness of the institution's decision-making.
   Second, the Council argues that the General Court's reasoning is inconsistent with the case-law of the Court which allows the institution to rely upon general considerations.
   Third, the Council submits that the General Court has erred in law in applying the ‘requisite legal and factual standard’ to the present case in order to review the reasons the Council brought to justify invocation of the exception laid down in Article 4(3) first sub-paragraph of the Regulation. In its assessment, the General Court committed legal errors in so far as it required evidence of an adverse effect on the decision-making process, disregarded the importance of the early stage of the decision-making for appreciating the impact of full disclosure, and failed to take account of the sensitivity of the requested document.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
   OJ L 145, p. 43


title: Case T-312/17: Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Campbell v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/31

         Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Campbell v Commission
   (Case T-312/17)
   (2017/C 249/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. (1)

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law.

      (1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010, L 280, p. 1).


title: Case C-476/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2007 — M.C.O. Congres v suxess GmbH

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2007 — M.C.O. Congres v suxess GmbH
   (Case C-476/07)
   (2008/C 22/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Berlin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M.C.O. Congres

      Defendant: suxess GmbH
   Question referred
   Is Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1), last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 (OJ 1999 L 277, p. 34), to be interpreted as meaning that if services are supplied in connection with sports and cultural services under Article 259 A 4(a) of the Code Général des Impôts (General Tax Code) in the form of the grant to the person to whom the services are supplied of permission to advertise on surfaces, in premises where events take place and on t-shirts, then they are advertising services within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 with the result that the services are deemed to have been supplied at the place where the person to whom the services have been supplied has his place of business?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-283/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (BMICONTROL)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/48

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (BMICONTROL)
   (Case T-283/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2010 in case R 1435/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BMICONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case T-413/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SOZA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SOZA v Commission
   (Case T-413/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA) (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-127/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/19/EC — Point 7 of Annex I — Deposit-guarantee scheme — Exclusion of certain depositors from the deposit-guarantee scheme — Exclusion of a ‘manager’)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija
   (Case C-127/14) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/19/EC - Point 7 of Annex I - Deposit-guarantee scheme - Exclusion of certain depositors from the deposit-guarantee scheme - Exclusion of a ‘manager’))
   (2015/C 354/08)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā Tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrejs Surmačs

      Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, are listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the Member States cannot provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who are not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them.

               2)

               Point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee laid down by that directive, as a manager, persons who, because of the function exercised within the credit institution, have, irrespective of the title of that function, a level of information and expertise which enables them to assess the actual financial situation and the risks associated with the activity of the credit institution.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case T-303/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/46

         Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)
   (Case T-303/17)
   (2017/C 231/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘4000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 548

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 654/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2001 in Case T-43/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Council of the European Union (Association arrangements for overseas countries and territories — Decision 97/803/EC — Sugar imports — Action for annulment — Action for compensation — Admissibility — Irreversible nature of the experience acquired — Principle of proportionality — Legal certainty)

text:
C 109/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 6 December 2001
                                                                                29 January 2002
in Case T-43/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Council
                    of the European Union (1)
                                                                           in Cases T-160/98: Firma Léon Van Parys NV and Pacific
                                                                           Fruit Company NV v Commission of the European Com-
(Association arrangements for overseas countries and terri-                                            munities (1)
tories — Decision 97/803/EC — Sugar imports — Action
for annulment — Action for compensation — Admissibility
— Irreversible nature of the experience acquired — Principle
                                                                           (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets — Action
              of proportionality — Legal certainty)
                                                                           for annulment — Admissibility — Reduction in reference
                                                                                quantities)
                          (2002/C 109/83)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/84)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-43/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established in
Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
the European Union (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin),
supported by Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: T. van Rijn), Kingdom of Spain (Agents: M. López-                 In Case T-160/98, Firma Léon Van Parys NV, established in
Monis Gallego and R. Silva de Lapuerta) and French Republic                Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific Fruit Company NV, established in
(Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger) — application for annulment of                Antwerp, represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van den Hende
Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997 amending                    and J. Holmens, lawyers, with an address for service in
at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the                  Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
overseas countries and territories with the European Economic              (agents: H. van Vliet and L. Visaggio): Application for the
Community (OJ 1997 L 329, p. 50), and an application for                   annulment of a decision allegedly taken by the Commission
compensation — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                between 12 March 1998 and 5 August 1998 reducing the
composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,                quantity of bananas marketed by the applicants in 1996 and
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, gave a judgment on                     taken into account in determining their reference quantity for
6 December 2001, in which it:                                              1998, Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
                                                                           Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
                                                                           a judgment on 29 January 2002, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and in addition to        1.    Declares the action inadmissible;
      pay the costs incurred by the Council, including those relating
      to the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the
3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.                            Commission.
(1) OJ C 151 of 16. 5. 1998.                                               (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Case C-286/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Gabriele Ossenbeck v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Gabriele Ossenbeck v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-286/17)
   (2017/C 283/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gabriele Ossenbeck

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: Is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jorge D. Savio against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-105/97)

text:
No C 181 /20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Massimo Lombardini, residing in Brussels, represented
by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                Case T- 16/97 (').
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
    consideration to the possible application of
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Ginette Nabavi
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 04/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                                                   ( 97/C 181 /41 )
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                        by Ginette Nabavi , residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
                                                                        represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Case T-16/97 (').                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of
                                                                             Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Georges Herbillon
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                          ( Case T-103/97 )
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                            ( 97/C 181 /40 )
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 (').
by Georges Herbillon, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jorge D. Savio against
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                               the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                               ( Case T-105 /97 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     ( 97/C 181 /42 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            by Jorge D. Savio, residing in Brussels, represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 6 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 181 /21
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                against the European Parliament
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                       ( Case T-108/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /44 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996                                       (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger,
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   residing at Heffingen, Luxembourg, represented by Jean
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the decision of 3 September 1996 assigning him
Case T-16/97 0 ).                                                            non-active status as from the evening of 31 January
                                                                             1996 , and
O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Suzanne Smets                        The applicant has already contested the appointing
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   authority's decision of 1 December 1995 , notified by letter
                         ( Case T-107/97 )                              of 27 December 1995 , by which he was assigned non
                                                                        active status backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted
                           ( 97/C 181 /43 )                             the allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff
                                                                        Regulations ( Case T-176/96 (')).
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                        In the present case, the applicant is challenging the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       decision of the President of the European Parliament of
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997                   3 September 1996, that the moment on which the decision
by Suzanne Smets, residing in Brussels, represented by                  to assign him non-active status is to take effect as from
Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for                the evening of 31 January 1996 and that the allowance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,                  provided for in Annex IV to the Staff Regulations is to be
21 Rue de Nassau .                                                      granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant submits that, by not communicating the
                                                                        contested decision to him until seven months after it came
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting her request                 into force, the Parliament has failed to comply with its
     to be regraded,                                                    obligation under Article 25 of the Staff Regulations to
                                                                        communicate at once any decision adversely affecting an
— annul the Commission's                decision   rejecting  her       official . He further argues that such decision cannot
     administrative complaint,                                          produce any retroactive effect without infringing the
                                                                        principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        In addition, he claims, the decision to assign him non
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     active status was adopted in infringement of Article 41 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations and of the duty to have regard for
                                                                        an official 's interests, and took no account of his personal
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  interests .
Case T- 16/97 ( M.
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        C ) OJ No C 388 , 21 . 12 . 1996 , p . 10 et seq.


title: Case C-567/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 10 November 2016 — Merck Sharp v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 10 November 2016 — Merck Sharp v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-567/16)
   (2017/C 022/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck Sharp

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

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an End of Procedure Notice issued by the reference member state under Article 28(4) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use before expiry of the basic patent to be treated as equivalent to a granted marketing authorisation for the purposes of Article 3(b) of European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC (2) of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) (the ‘SPC Regulation’), such that an applicant for an SPC in the Member State in question is entitled to apply for and be granted an SPC on the basis of the End of Procedure Notice?

               2.

               If the answer to question (1) is no; in the circumstances in question 1, is the absence of a granted marketing authorisation in the Member State in question at the date of the application for an SPC in that member state an irregularity that can be cured under Article 10(3) of the SPC Regulation once the marketing authorisation has been granted?

      (1)  OJ L 311, p. 67

      (2)  OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Case T-264/12: Action brought on 7 June 2012 — UTi Worldwide and Others v Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/14

         Action brought on 7 June 2012 — UTi Worldwide and Others v Commission
   (Case T-264/12)
   2012/C 235/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: UTi Worldwide, Inc. (Tortola, British Virgin Islands), UTi Nederland BV (Schiphol, Netherlands) and UTI Worldwide (UK) Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 Final of 28 March 2012, in Case COMP/39.462 — ‘Freight Forwarders’ — insofar as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 2 of the Decision of 28 March 2012, insofar as it concerns the applicants, and set aside or reduce the amount of the fine accordingly;

               —

               Ensure the Court’s finding and ruling on UTi Nederland and UTi UK fully apply to UTi Worldwide Inc., as parent company not involved in the facts of the case leading to the Decision but liable for its subsidiaries pursuant to the terms of the Decision; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law, each of which has three branches.

               1.

               First plea in law, in support of the first part of the form of order sought, alleging that the applicants did not infringe Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreements:

                           —

                           The Commission committed manifest error by including applicants in the alleged Automated Manifest System (‘AMS’) cartel and failing to properly assess facts and conduct a complete and correct analysis of its own evidentiary record, as:

                                       —

                                       The Commission incorrectly analyses facts in its own evidentiary record;

                                       —

                                       The Decision misstates the scope of the discussion held in the framework of the association Freight Forward International (‘FFI’);

                                       —

                                       FFI members did not agree on a price or a range of prices;

                                       —

                                       Applicants and other forwarders selectively imposed AMS fees for competitive advantage;

                                       —

                                       The Commission ignored clear evidence that applicants’ membership in FFI did not demonstrate applicants’ involvement in the AMS fee cartel; and

                                       —

                                       The Commission ignores clear evidence that applicants independently set their AMS fee based on air cargo carriers’ AMS fees and other factors of market pricing.

                           —

                           The Commission fails to establish that applicants participated in any agreement to distort competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as:

                                       —

                                       Applicants’ presence at six FFI meetings and conference call does not meet the legal standard for violation of Article 101 TFEU; and

                                       —

                                       The Decision contains no evidence that applicants participated in any bilateral or multilateral discussions outside of FFI regarding the AMS fee.

                           —

                           The AMS fee had no ‘appreciable effect “on competition, as:

                                       —

                                       The AMS fee was a minuscule component of the total shipment price; and

                                       —

                                       The AMS fee was inevitable based on the air cargo carriers” decision to introduce a fee and thus had no appreciable effect on the market.

               2.

               Second plea in law, in support of the second part of the form of order sought alleging that that the Commission’s Decision on the fine violates Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), the Commission’s own guideline on fines (2), and the principle of proportionality and includes a calculation error:

                           —

                           The Commission fails to apply the concept of “gravity” within the meaning of Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 19 and 20 of the guidelines on fines, as:

                                       —

                                       There was absence of any effective involvement of applicants in the alleged infringement;

                                       —

                                       There was absence of effective implementation of the alleged infringement; and

                                       —

                                       There was absence of individualisation of the actions of applicants with regard to the overall behaviour of all undertakings concerned.

                           —

                           The Commission has violated the principle of proportionality, as:

                                       —

                                       The application of the 16 % rate is disproportionate with regard to the law and the facts of the case;

                                       —

                                       The calculations based on the entire market in freight forwarding services is disproportionate;

                                       —

                                       The application of the duration coefficient is disproportionate; and

                                       —

                                       The inclusion of an additional amount in the basic amount is disproportionate.

                           —

                           The Commission’s fine imposed on UTi Worldwide Inc., individually as parent company, is artificially and erroneously inflated by the Commission’s mathematical formula.

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

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-423/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/10/EC)

text:
C 118/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          21.4.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                            (Third Chamber)
                       of 7 December 2000                                                          of 7 December 2000
in Case C-395/99: Commission of the European Communi-                      in Case C-423/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                                 ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
Directives 96/51/EC and 96/93/EC — Failure to transpose                                    to transpose Directive 98/10/EC)
            directives within the prescribed periods)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/07)
                          (2001/C 118/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-423/99: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-395/99: Commission of the European Communities                   (Agents: C. Schmidt and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents:
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) v Italian Republic (Agents:                 U. Leanza and I.M. Braguglia) — application for a declaration
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri) — application for a declar-             that, by not adopting or, in any event, by not communicating
ation that, by not adopting or, in any event, not communicat-              to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
ing the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necess-            provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/10/EC of
ary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July                   the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in                 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to
feedingstuffs (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39) and with Council                      voice telephony and on universal service for telecommuni-
Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification                cations in a competitive environment (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 24),
of animals and animal products (OJ 1997 L 13, p. 28), the                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC         that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
Treaty and those directives — the Court (First Chamber),                   C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann                J.-P Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Decem-
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December                    ber 2000, in which it:
2000, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods the     1.    Declares that, by not adopting, within the time-limit laid down,
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with the provisions referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of               comply with Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament
      Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 amending                        and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of
      Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs,                open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on
      and with the provisions of Council Directive 96/93/EC of                   universal service for telecommunications in a competitive
      17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal                environment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        obligations under that directive;
      under those provisions;
                                                                           2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: Case T-877/16: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Verschuur v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document concerning the administrative procedure relating to State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) granted by the Netherlands to Starbucks — Refusal to grant access — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/29

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Verschuur v Commission
   (Case T-877/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document concerning the administrative procedure relating to State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) granted by the Netherlands to Starbucks - Refusal to grant access - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 249/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Steven Verschuur (Baarn, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, A. Buchet and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6455 final of 3 October 2016, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Steven Verschuur shall bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017


title: Case C-197/04: Action brought on 30 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/3

         Action brought on 30 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-197/04)
   (2004/C 168/06)
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Gross, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by applying the tax rate for fine-cut tobacco for self-rolled cigarettes to rolls of tobacco sold under the name ‘West Single Packs’, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 95/59/EC (1) on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco and under the first paragraph of Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the Commission's view, the rolls of tobacco sold on the German market under the name ‘West Single Packs’, which consumers can wrap in a separately sold cigarette paper with a filter by simple non-industrial handling, are cigarettes within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 95/59/EG and, accordingly, must be taxed as such.
   The German provisions applying the tax rate for fine-cut tobacco for self-rolled cigarettes to ‘West Single Packs’ thus infringe Article 4(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC and the first paragraph of Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC.

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 8.


title: Case T-290/15: Action brought on 31 May 2015 — Smarter Travel Media/OHIM (SMARTER TRAVEL)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/33

         Action brought on 31 May 2015 — Smarter Travel Media/OHIM (SMARTER TRAVEL)
   (Case T-290/15)
   (2015/C 262/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Smarter Travel Media LLC (Boston, United States of America) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SMARTER TRAVEL’ — Application for registration No 12 460 044

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20/03/2015 in Case R 1986/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the mark was not distinctive;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in misapplying the Bild decision;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account that the trademark contained an independently registrable element;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account that the same trademark with a different logo had been registered for essentially the same services and that the new application is merely a modernization;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in not making a global assessment.


title: Case T-261/12: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission (Actions for damages — Public service contract — Tender procedure — Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia — Rejection of a tender — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/12

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission
   (Case T-261/12) (1)

   ((Actions for damages - Public service contract - Tender procedure - Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia - Rejection of a tender - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   2014/C 380/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union in the Republic of Serbia to annul the decision to award the contract to the applicant in tender procedure EuropeAid/131427/C/SER/RS, concerning the strengthening of the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia (OJ 2011/S 147-243259).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-340/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Article 12 — Universal service provider — Quantitative discounts — Application to intermediaries who consolidate postal items — Requirement of non-discrimination)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)
   (Case C-340/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 12 - Universal service provider - Quantitative discounts - Application to intermediaries who consolidate postal items - Requirement of non-discrimination))
   (2015/C 118/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: bpost SA

      Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of non-discrimination in postal tariffs laid down in Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a system of quantitative discounts per sender, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: Case C-505/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/23

         Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-505/11 P)
   2011/C 347/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG (represented by: T. Klose, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant;

               —

               In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

               —

               In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant alleges the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of a fundamental right in a total of six grounds of appeal:

               First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

               Second, the General Court has disregarded the fact that there is infringement of the principle ne bis in idem, since the Commission failed to comply with the amnesty decisions of national cartel authorities in favour of the appellant taken before proceedings were instituted.

               Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission decision which held the appellant to be jointly liable with its subsidiaries. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not itself participate in the infringements. An attribution of third-party acts on the basis of the incorrect premiss of the liability of the economic unit infringes the principle of personal liability, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the right to a fair trial.

               Fourth, the General Court has erred in law by disregarding the fact that the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liability infringes the principle of personal liability. In the alternative, the appellant alleges that the General Court has unlawfully confirmed the Commission decision as regards the lack of liability allocation within the group and the judgment is thus vitiated by a defect in reasoning.

               Fifth, the appellant claims that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the basic amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier, the repeated imposition of fines for parallel infringements and the insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants by the Commission and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. In any event, the judgment is vitiated by a defect of reasoning, in that it confirms the repeated imposition of fines which departs from the Commission’s decision-making practice.

               Sixth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court has thus applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellant.

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


title: Case C-377/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Communities' own resources — Undischarged TIR carnets — Failure or delay in paying the corresponding own resources)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-377/03) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Undischarged TIR carnets - Failure or delay in paying the corresponding own resources)
   (2006/C 294/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits, A. Goldman and M. Wimmer, Agents, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Default or delay in the payment of the own resources to the Commission — Failure to comply with accounting rules — Irregular release of certain transit documents (TIR carnets) by the Belgian customs authority
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to enter in the accounts, or by making a late entry in the accounts of, the own resources arising from the TIR carnets which had not been discharged properly, by placing them in the B accounts instead of entering them in the A accounts, with the result that the relevant own resources were not made available to the Commission of the European Communities within the time-limits,

                           —

                           by refusing to pay default interest on the amounts owing to the Commission of the European Communities,

                           —

                           the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which, with effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which had identical subject-matter;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.


title: Case T-15/10: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2011 — Noko Ngele v Commission and Others (Non-contractual liability — Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction — Action inadmissible in part — Absence of causal link — Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/20

         Order of the General Court of 25 March 2011 — Noko Ngele v Commission and Others
   (Case T-15/10) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction - Action inadmissible in part - Absence of causal link - Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
   2011/C 152/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, agent), AT (Brussels, Belgium) AU (Brussels), AV (Brussels) and AW (Brussels)

      Re:

   Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of pursuing recovery of a debt owed to him and the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of criminal proceedings instigated against him in Belgium

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed on the basis that it has been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it is directed against AT, AU, AV and AW.

               2.

               Mr Mariyus Noko Ngele’s head of claim seeking from the Court a declaration that the Centre pour le développement des entreprises (CDE) never replaced the Centre pour le développement industriel (CDI) and that the CDE does not exist in law or have legal personality in Belgium is dismissed on the basis that it is made before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.

               3.

               Mr Noko Ngele’s claim that the Court should order that the judgment to be delivered is enforceable is rejected as inadmissible.

               4.

               The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               5.

               Mr Noko Ngele is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-554/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Z. Zh.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; other party: I.O.

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Z. Zh.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; other party: I.O.
   (Case C-554/13)
   2014/C 9/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Z. Zh.

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   and

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Other party: I.O.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State pose a risk to public policy, within the meaning of Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348; ‘the Return Directive’), merely because he is suspected of having committed a criminal offence under national law, or is it necessary that he should have been convicted in a criminal court for the commission of that offence and, in the latter case, must that conviction have become final and absolute?

               2.

               In the assessment as to whether a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Return Directive, do other facts and circumstances of the case, in addition to a suspicion or a conviction, also play a role, such as the severity or type of criminal offence under national law, the time that has elapsed and the intention of the person concerned?

               3.

               Do the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant to the assessment referred to in Question 2 also have a role to play in the option provided for in Article 7(4) of the Return Directive, in a case where the person concerned poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision, of being able to choose between, on the one hand, refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure and, on the other hand, granting a period for voluntary departure which is shorter than seven days?


title: Case T-345/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014  — Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones v OHIM — Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales (CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL — Earlier Spanish figurative mark Cpi construcción promociones e instalaciones, s.a. and earlier trade name Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, S.A.-C.P.I. — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1) (b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark — No evidence of use of the earlier trade name in the course of trade)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones v OHIM — Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales (CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL)
   (Case T-345/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL - Earlier Spanish figurative mark Cpi construcción promociones e instalaciones, s.a. and earlier trade name Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, S.A.-C.P.I. - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1) (b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark - No evidence of use of the earlier trade name in the course of trade))
   2014/C 282/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2013 (Case R 1935/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA, and Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 112, 10.5.2003

text:
C 124/30        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         24.5.2003
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 124/53)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 112, 10.5.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 101, 26.4.2003
         OJ C 83, 5.4.2003
         OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
         OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
         OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
         OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-501/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/53

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones v Commission
   (Case T-501/14)
   2014/C 282/70
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.


title: Case T-35/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/29

         Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
   (Case T-35/13)
   2013/C 79/49
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following notes from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget Execution (Directorate for General Budget and EDF):

               —

               Note No 1328694 of 12 November 2012 concerning ‘Payment by offsetting of debts payable to or by the Commission’, in which the Commission informed the applicant that the debt of EUR 69 061,89 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) had been offset against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

               —

               Note No 1380282 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract (No 245599) against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

               —

               Note No 1380323 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract against the corresponding equivalent debt owed by META Group;

               —

               Note No 1387638 of 22 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 220 518,25 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) and the Ecolink+ contract (No 256224) against the debt of EUR 209 108,92 owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

         and, accordingly, order the Commission to:

               —

               pay the applicant the sum of EUR 424 787, plus default interest;

               —

               pay compensation in respect of the consequential loss suffered by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in Case T-34/13.