title: Case C-286/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Luigi Ricci v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Luigi Ricci v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
   (Case C-286/09)
   2009/C 233/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luigi Ricci

      Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

      Question referred

   The Court of Justice is asked to give a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC as to whether Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC, and the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that the principle that all insurance periods must be aggregated for the purposes of entitlement to the right to benefits, and of the acquisition and maintenance of that right — a principle implemented through the adoption, by the Council, of Regulation No 1408/71 — applies in all cases where the aggregation and pro rata mechanism must be used for the purposes of recognising the right to a given benefit, with the result that account must be taken to that end both of the insurance periods completed under the legislation of each Member State, and of those completed under the social insurance scheme applicable to employees of the Community institutions.


title: Case C-122/05: Action brought on 14 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/15

         Action brought on 14 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-122/05)
   (2005/C 115/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and D. Recchia, members of the Commission's legal service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for complying with the directive expired on 31 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 275 of 25.10.2003, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.


title: Case C-502/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/14

         Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-502/15)
   (2016/C 016/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the United Kingdom, by failing to correctly apply the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, with regard to Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, has failed to fulfil the obligations arising from Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action the Commission requests the Court to declare that the United Kingdom has failed to implement correctly, in Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.
   The Commission considers, in particular, that the United Kingdom has not ensured that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in Gowerton and Llanelli are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4, 10 and Annex I(A) and Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.
   Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 3 agglomerations, as well as by not subjecting the urban waste water in Gibraltar to any treatment, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.
   Finally, it is argued that the United Kingdom has not correctly complied with the obligations arising from Article 5, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, as it has failed to ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 8 agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, is made subject to more stringent treatment.
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 30 June 1993.

      (1)  OJ L 135, p. 40.


               22.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/35

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-7/16)
   (2016/C 347/07)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen Bakken, attorney at law and Atle Erling Lunder, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare void Articles 1 and 2 of ESA Decision 061/16/COL;

               2.

               Order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 061/16/COL of 16 March 2016.

               —

               As a consequence of the EFTA Court's judgment in Case E-1/13, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated a formal investigation procedure to look into the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland with Og fjarskipti of 1 February 2010, for the use and operation of an optical fibre. The investigation was concluded with Decision No 061/16/COL where the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The Applicant claims that the contested Decision rests upon a misapplication of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-109/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER)

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/16

         Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER)
   (Case T-109/16)
   (2016/C 165/18)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire de la mer (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘RESPIMER’ — Application for registration No 11 228 004

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 3109/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow the EU trade mark application ‘RESPIMER’ No 11 228 004 to mature to registration for all designated goods in classes 3, 5 and 10;

               —

               order Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG to reimburse all costs to the applicant before the Opposition division of the EUIPO, the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law

               —

               By refusing to take into consideration the decision of April 4, 2013 of the French national institute of industrial property as regards the same marks, the fifth board of appeal has failed to provide legal basis to its decision of January 21, 2016;

               —

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


title: Case T-236/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — CMC France v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/56

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — CMC France v Commission
   (Case T-236/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CMC France (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               CMC France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-202/08 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2008 by American Clothing Associates SA against the judgment delivered on 28 February 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-215/06, American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/20

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2008 by American Clothing Associates SA against the judgment delivered on 28 February 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-215/06, American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM
   (Case C-202/08 P)
   (2008/C 209/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: American Clothing Associates SA (represented by: P. Maeyaert, N. Clarembeaux and C. De Keersmaeker, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance in so far as it held that the First Board of Appeal of OHIM had not infringed Article 7(1)(h) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) by adopting its decision of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) in so far as it relates to the registration of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods in Classes 18 ‘Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery’ and 25 ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant raises a single plea in law in support of its appeal, alleging infringement of Articles 7(1)(h) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and 6ter(1)(a) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property of 20 March 1883, as revised and amended. (2) That plea is essentially based on four arguments.
   By its first argument, the appellant complains that the judgment under appeal failed to have regard to the relevance of the essential function of a State emblem when assessing the scope of protection of an emblem. A State emblem refers to symbols of the identity and sovereignty of a State, which are designed according to an artistic language and a very precise science, relating to armorial bearings. Whatever its nature, an emblem could therefore be refused registration as a trade mark or an element of a trade mark only if it is capable of undermining the identity or sovereignty of a State. However, the mere reproduction of a sign similar to a State emblem displaying no, or few, heraldic characteristics as an element of a trade mark is not such as to affect the essential function of that emblem.
   By its second argument, the appellant criticises the Court of First Instance for having failed to have regard to the relevance of the heraldic characteristics of a State emblem by holding that a number of artistic interpretations of one and the same emblem on the basis of the same heraldic description are possible. According to the appellant, Article 6ter(1)(a) of the Paris Convention and the concept of ‘imitation from a heraldic point of view’ do not seek to protect the symbol as such, but seek to protect a very precise artistic interpretation or a specific graphic work resulting from the implementation of the rules governing heraldic art and science.
   By its third argument, the appellant complains that the judgment under appeal misconstrued the scope of the concept of ‘heraldic imitation’ and, in so doing, that it affirms an interpretation of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the Paris Convention which confers on the States concerned a virtually absolute monopoly on signs having no heraldic characteristics or no heraldic characteristics which are very pronounced in relation to their registration or use as an element of a trade mark.
   By its fourth argument, the appellant lastly criticises the Court of First Instance for having rejected at the outset, as irrelevant, certain circumstances specific to the present case, such as the nature of the heraldic characteristics whose protection is relied on, the overall impression given by a trade mark which contains as an element a State emblem or an imitation thereof, the nature of the protection offered in the country of origin of the State emblem concerned or the conditions of use of the trade mark concerned.

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

      (2)  United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 828, No 11847, p. 108.


title: Case C-506/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 November 2014  — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 November 2014 — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy
   (Case C-506/14)
   (2015/C 034/09)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy

      Other party to the proceedings: Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1), in so far as it is based on Article 10a(5) of the Emissions Trading Directive (2), invalid and does it infringe Article 23(3) of that directive, because it was not adopted on the basis of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, as is prescribed in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (3) and Article 12 of Regulation No 182/2011/EU (4)? In the event that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, the following questions need not be answered.

               2)

               Does Commission Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Article 10a(5)(a) of the Emissions Trading Directive, in so far as the Commission, when establishing the industry cap, did not take into account:

                           (i)

                           some of the verified emissions for the period 2005 to 2007 of activities and installations which for the period 2008 to 2012 were included within the scope of the Emissions Trading Directive, but for which in the period 2005 to 2007 there was no verification obligation and which were therefore not registered in the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL);

                           (ii)

                           new activities included for the periods 2008 to 2012 and 2013 to 2020 within the scope of the Emissions Trading Directive, in so far as they had not in the period 2005 to 2007 been included within the scope of that Directive and were not carried out at installations which in the period 2005 to 2007 were already within the scope of the Emissions Trading Directive;

                           (iii)

                           emissions from installations decommissioned before 30 June 2011, although in fact in the period 2005 to 2007 and partially also in the period 2008 to 2012 there were verified emissions from those installations?

                     In the event that the questions 2 (i) to (iii) are to any extent to be answered in the affirmative, is Commission Decision 2013/448/EU with respect to the application of the cross-sectoral correction factor invalid, so that it should not be applied?

               3)

               Is Commission Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe Article 10a(5) of the Emissions Trading Directive and the objectives of that directive, in that for the calculation of the industry cap under Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) of the Emissions Trading Directive no account is taken of emissions which arise when (i) electricity is generated from waste gases in installations indicated in Annex I to the Emissions Trading Directive which are not ‘electricity generators’, and (ii) heat is produced in installations indicated in Annex I to the Emissions Trading Directive which are not ‘electricity generators’, and to which installations under Article 10a(1) to (4) of the Emissions Trading Directive and Decision 2011/278/EU (5) allowances ought to be allocated free of charge?

               4)

               Is Commission Decision 2013/448/EU — by itself or in conjunction with Article 10a(5) of the Emissions Trading Directive — invalid and does it infringe Article 3(e) and (u) of the Emissions Trading Directive, since for the calculation of the industry cap under Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) of the Emissions Trading Directive the emissions referred to in Question 3 above are left out of account?

               5)

               Does Commission Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Article 10a(12) of the Emissions Trading Directive, in so far as the cross-sectoral correction factor is extended to a sector defined in Commission 2010/2/EU (6) in which there is a significant risk of carbon leakage?

               6)

               Does Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a(1) of the Emissions Trading Directive, in so far as the Commission’s measures for the establishment of benchmarks should take into account incentives for energy efficient techniques, the most efficient techniques, high efficiency co-generation, and the efficient energy recovery of waste gases?

               7)

               Does Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a(2) of the Emissions Trading Directive, is so far as the principles for setting benchmarks should be based on the average performance of the 10 % most efficient installations in a sector?

      (1)  2013/448/EU: Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (3)  1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).

      (5)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      (6)  2010/2/EU: Commission Decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage (notified under document C(2009) 10251) (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 10).


title: Case C-402/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2012 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-396/09 Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/26

         Appeal brought on 24 August 2012 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-396/09 Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission
   (Case C-402/12 P)
   2013/C 9/43
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

   Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Other parties to the proceedings:

               Vereniging Milieudefensie,

               Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht,

               European Commission,

               Kingdom of the Netherlands,

               Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2012 in Case T-396/09;

               —

               rule on the substance of the case and dismiss the action of the applicants at first instance;

               —

               order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs of this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Parliament takes the view that the General Court erred in law in finding that it could review the validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) in relation to Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention (2) even though this provision does not have direct effect. According to the Parliament, this finding of the General Court is based on a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of both the settled case-law on the possibility for individuals to rely on the provisions of an international agreement with the aim of challenging the validity of a European Union act, and of the nature and scope of the international obligations at issue in the present case.
   In concrete terms, the General Court applied the case-law flowing from the Fediol (3) and Nakajima (4) judgments, but disregarded the fact that this case-law — which moreover has thus far remained confined to an extremely small number of cases — can be applied only by way of exception and under very specific conditions. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to examine whether these conditions were actually present in this case, and in any event failed to take account of the exceptional nature of that case-law.

      (1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).

      (3)  Case 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1825.

      (4)  Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2169.


title: Case C-593/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet
      (Case C-593/14)
      (2015/C 073/23)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Vestre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Question referred

      ‘Does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU), preclude a Member State from not allowing a resident company a tax exemption for interest income where an affiliated company within the same group established in another Member State is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of rules (as in the present case) in the relevant Member State on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation, where the Member State allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest income in cases where an affiliated company within the same group in that same Member State is not allowed a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of national rules (as in the present case) on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation?’


title: Case C-391/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía — Spain) — Marina del Mediterráneo SL and Others v Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) — Article 2(1) — Decision of a contracting authority allowing an economic operator to participate in a procurement procedure — Decision not amenable to review under the applicable national legislation)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía — Spain) — Marina del Mediterráneo SL and Others v Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía
   (Case C-391/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) - Article 2(1) - Decision of a contracting authority allowing an economic operator to participate in a procurement procedure - Decision not amenable to review under the applicable national legislation))
   (2017/C 168/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marina del Mediterráneo SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Duquesa SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Estepona SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Este SL, Marinas del Mediterráneo Torre SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Marbella SL, Gómez Palma SC, Enrique Alemán SA, Cyes Infraestructuras SA and Cysur Obras y Medioambiente SA

      Defendant: Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía

      Intervening parties: Consejería de Obras Públicas y Vivienda de la Junta de Andalucía, Nassir Bin Abdullah and Sons SL, Puerto Deportivo de Marbella SA and Ayuntamiento de Marbella

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a decision allowing a tenderer to participate in a procurement procedure — a decision allegedly adopted in breach of EU public procurement law or the national legislation transposing it — is not classed among the preparatory acts of a contracting authority which may be subject to an independent judicial review;

               2.

               Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, have direct effect.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Case F-43/08: Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Spee v Europol

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/33

         Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Spee v Europol
   (Case F-43/08)
   (2008/C 183/66)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of Europol's decision to withdraw the offer of employment for which the applicant had submitted an application and to subsequently republish it, and an application for damages
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 7 January 2008 issued after a complaint and the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 to declare vacant once again the post of First Officer in the IMT1 Infrastructure Unit and not to appoint the applicant;

               —

               Order Europol to search for an equitable solution to the situation in which the applicant finds himself following the rash and defective decision;

               —

               Order Europol to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 5 000 net;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-137/96)

text:
 No C 180/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 6 . 96
 Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Paris, of 23 February                   Communities on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 25 April               European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Scotch                Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
 Whisky Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
 Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
 Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
 Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai ) on the following                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
 question:
                                                                            1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
 Having regard to European rules, in particular Article 5 of                      adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 i 1 ),                      Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 ), the Federal Republic of
 may the generic term 'whisky' be included in the trade name                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 of spirit drinks consisting entirely of whisky diluted with                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 water, so that the alcoholic strength by volume is less than
 40° ?
                                                                           2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 C ) OJ No L 160, 12 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments .
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                           in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ), the time limit for transposition expired
 Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  on 1 January 1994 .
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                  Germany                                  (') OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-137/96 )                              ( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .
                               ( 96/C 180/52 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities on 24 April 1 996 by the Commission of the
 European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 March 1996 in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the               the case of Finanzamt Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.                                                            Langhorst
                                                                                Case C-141 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                            ( 96/C 180/54 )
 1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 91 /414/EEC ('), the Federal Republic of                 European Communities by an order of the Fifth Senate of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC          the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 14 March
       Treaty and under that Directive;                                    1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
                                                                           1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst on the following
                                                                          questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                  1 . Is it permissible under Article 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ); the time limit for transposition expired                 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
on 27 July 1993 .                                                                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                to turnover taxes (the Sixth Directive ) ( J ) for a credit
(M OJ No L 230 , 1991 , p . 1 .                                                  note within the meaning of paragraph 14 ( 5 ) of the
( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .                                      Umsatzsteuergesetz ( Law on turnover tax) 1980 to be
                                                                                regarded as an invoice or other document serving as
                                                                                invoice ( Article 21 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Directive )?
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  2 . If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative : Is it
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                             permissible under Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive
                                  Germany                                        for a person who accepts a credit note showing a higher
                                                                                amount of tax than that owed by reason of taxable
                           ( Case C- 1 3 8/96 )                                  transactions, and does not contradict in that respect the
                              ( 96/C 180/53 )                                    mention of tax in the credit note, to be regarded as a
                                                                                person who mentions value-added tax on an invoice or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            other document serving as invoice and is therefore liable
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              to pay that value added tax ?


title: Case T-572/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC) (Community trade mark — Request for renewal of the Community figurative mark CVTC — Partial renewal — Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC)
   (Case T-572/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Request for renewal of the Community figurative mark CVTC - Partial renewal - Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama, Japan) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by F. Mattina, and subsequently by P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1), relating to a request for renewal of the registration of the Community figurative mark CVTC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Autotrasporti Silvano Zottich against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-605/97)

text:
C 72/20               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Autotrasporti                 Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
Silvano Zottich against the Commission of the European              Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                          Communities
                       (Case T-605/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (98/C 72/45)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          30 July 1997,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                                                                         the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
1997 by Autotrasporti Silvano Zottich, represented by
                                                                         was paid,
Marcello Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of
Florence and Trieste, with an address for service at the
latter's Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.                   Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                    relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
     was paid,
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Pauletic Antonio
                                                                    Succ. di Pauletic Igor against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case T-607/97)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (98/C 72/47)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                                                                    1997 by Pauletic Antonio Succ. di Pauletic Igor,
                                                                    represented by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro
                                                                    Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and Trieste, with an
                                                                    address for service at the latter's Chambers at 17 Via
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Zootrans SNC
                                                                    XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-606/97)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (98/C 72/46)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          30 July 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                      the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
1997 by Zootrans SNC, represented by Marcello Clarich                    the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and                    was paid,


title: Case C-9/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Tomás Salazar Brier against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case T-83/03 Tomás Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/27

         Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Tomás Salazar Brier against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-83/03 Tomás Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-9/06 P)
   (2006/C 60/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-83/03 Tomás Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Tomás Salazar Brier, represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               (1)

               Declare this appeal admissible;

               (2)

               Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 and, if appropriate, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               (3)

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI of Community law in paragraphs 26 to 48 of the judgment under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-577/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle, Wien (Austria)) — Michaela Hopfgartner

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle, Wien (Austria)) — Michaela Hopfgartner
   (Case C-577/12) (1)

   2013/C 129/25
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-190/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Werner Fries v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 — Annex I, point FCL.065(b) — Holders of a pilot’s licence who have attained the age of 65 prohibited from acting as pilots of aircraft engaged in commercial air transport — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15 — Freedom of occupation — Article 21 — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of age — Commercial air transport — Concept)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Werner Fries v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH
   (Case C-190/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex I, point FCL.065(b) - Holders of a pilot’s licence who have attained the age of 65 prohibited from acting as pilots of aircraft engaged in commercial air transport - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15 - Freedom of occupation - Article 21 - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of age - Commercial air transport - Concept))
   (2017/C 283/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Werner Fries

      Defendant: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Consideration of the first and second questions has revealed nothing that might affect the validity of point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the light of Article 15(1) or Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               2.

               Point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011 must be interpreted as prohibiting the holder of a pilot’s licence who has attained the age of 65 neither from acting as a pilot in ferry flights, operated by an air carrier carrying no passengers, cargo or mail, nor from working as an instructor and/or examiner on board an aircraft, without being part of the flight crew.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-62/06 RENV R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — Eurallumina v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/16

         Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — Eurallumina v Commission
   (Case T-62/06 RENV R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
   2011/C 219/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: R. Denton and L. Martin Alegi, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) in so far as it concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 28 November 1996 in Case C-293/95 P Odigitria AAE v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - EEC/Senegal and EEC/Guinea-Bissau fishery agreements - Boarding of a fishing vessel - Community licence)

text:
No C 54/8           | EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  States in which he has an office where he organizes his
                                                                      activities for his employer and to which he returns after
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                      each business trip abroad.
                       of 9 January 1997
in Case C-3 83/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): Petrus Wilhelmus
                Rutten v. Cross Medical Ltd (')
(Brussels Convention — Article 5 (1 ) — Courts for the
place of performance of the contractual obligation —
Contract of employment — Place where the employee
habitually carries out his work — Work performed in
                    more than one country)                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                           ( 97/C 54/ 13 )                                                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 November 1996
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        in Case C-293/95 P Odigitria AAE v. Council of the
                                                                      European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (')
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — EEC/Senegal and
          published in the European Court Reports)                    EEC/Guinea-Bissau fishery agreements — Boarding of a
                                                                                fishing vessel — Community licence)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/ 14 )
In Case C-383/95 : reference to the Court under the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
 Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil                              (Language of the case: Greek)
and commercial matters by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 pending before that Court between Petrus Wilhelmus
 Rutten and Cross Medical Ltd — on the interpretation of                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 Article 5 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned Convention of                            published in the European Court Reports)
 27 September 1968 ( OJ No L 299, 31 . 12 . 1972 , p. 32 ),
 as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
 Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the                 In Case C-293/95 P: Odigitria AAE ( represented
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                 by Anastasia Chatzitzani , Georgios Stefanakis and
 ( OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 1 and — amended text —           Epameinondas Marias ) — appeal against the judgment of
 p. 77 ), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
 Accession of the Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388 , 31 . 12 .          ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in Case T-572/93 Odigitria
 1982, p. 1 ) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on                 v. Council and Commission ( 1995 ) ECR 11-2025 , seeking
 the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese             to have that judgment set aside — the other parties to the
 Republic ( OJ No L 285 , 3 . 10 . 1989 , p. 1 ) — the Court           proceedings being Council of the European Union ( Agents :
 ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President             John Carbery and Sofia Kyriakopoulou ) and Commission
 of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, H.                      of the European Communities ( agents : Madame Kontou
 Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G.              Durande and Thomas van Rijn ) — the Court ( Fourth
 Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a            Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the
 judgment on 9 January 1997, in which it has ruled :                   Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General , R.
                                                                       Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 November 1996 ,
 Article 5 (1 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on              the operative part of which is as follows :
 jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
 commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of
 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed.
 and the Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as
 meaning that where, in the performance of a contract of
 employment, an employee carries out his work in several
  Contracting States, the place where he habitually carries            2 . The appelant is ordered to pay the costs.
 out his work, within the meaning of that provision, is the
 place where he has established the effective centre of his
                                                                        (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
 working activities. When identifying that place, it is
 necessary to take into account the fact that the employee
 spends most of his working time in one of the Contracting


title: Case F-125/10: Action brought on 30 November 2010 — Schuerewegen v Parliament

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/68

         Action brought on 30 November 2010 — Schuerewegen v Parliament
   (Case F-125/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/135
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Schuerewegen (Marienthal, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the appointing authority's decision by which the applicant was removed from his place of work and his staff card removed, together with the measures taken as a result of that decision and damages.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 30 August 2010 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 25 March 2010 by which the applicant was forcibly removed, without justification or written or verbal notification and without notice, and by which his staff card was withdrawn together with the measures taken as a result of that decision;

               —

               inform the defendant of the consequences entailed by the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, of the compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to reimburse in full the medical costs incurred as a result of the health problems afflicting the applicant following these events;

               —

               order the defendant to restore all the days of annual leave taken by the applicant since 25 March 2010, together with all days of sick leave;

               —

               order the defendant to provide the applicant with written, public apologies in order to clear his good name;

               —

               order the defendant to ensure that the applicant does not suffer from any vexatious or discriminatory treatment or measure as a result of the contested measure adversely affecting him;

               —

               order the defendant to ensure that no trace of the measure adversely affecting him, its grounds or consequences remain in the individual file of the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to actively and promptly search for a position for the applicant that is sufficiently distant from his current post to allow him to resume work in humanly acceptable conditions;

               —

               order the defendant to ensure that those who participated conceptually, actively or indirectly in the measure adversely affecting him receive adequate warnings and/or sanctions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10,000 by way of damages for non-material loss together with the provisional sum of EUR 5,000 by way of damages for material loss, subject to increase;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-197/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Andrea Incontri v EUIPO – HigicoL (ANDREA INCONTRI)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/38

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Andrea Incontri v EUIPO – HigicoL (ANDREA INCONTRI)
   (Case T-197/16)
   (2016/C 243/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andrea Incontri Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HigicoL, SA (Baguim do monte, Portugal)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANDREA INCONTRI’ – Application for registration No 10 985 323

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 in Case R 146/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               totally alter the contested decision;

               —

               as a consequence, accept EUTM Application No 10 985 323 ANDREA INCONTRI in its entirety;

               —

               order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the EUIPO opposition and appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-472/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product Zoledronic acid Teva Pharma — zoledronic acid — Regulatory data protection period for the reference medicinal products Zometa and Aclasta, containing the active substance zoledronic acid — Directive 2001/83/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Global marketing authorisation — Regulatory data protection period)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission
   (Case T-472/12) (1)

   ((Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product Zoledronic acid Teva Pharma - zoledronic acid - Regulatory data protection period for the reference medicinal products Zometa and Aclasta, containing the active substance zoledronic acid - Directive 2001/83/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Global marketing authorisation - Regulatory data protection period))
   (2015/C 363/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Sipos, and, subsequently by M. Wilderspin, P. Mihaylova and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, and C. Firth, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C (2012) 5894 final of 16 August 2012 granting a marketing authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Teva Pharma — zoledronic acid’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Teva Pharma BV.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.


title: Case T-657/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/28

         Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
   (Case T-657/11)
   2012/C 73/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Declare it admissible;

               —

               Principally, declare the action well founded and annul the decision of the DG ‘Information Society and Media’ of the European Commission of 19 October 2011;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and failure to state sufficient reasons, to the extent that the recovery order of 19 October 2011 is based exclusively on evidence, namely an audit report and decision of the Commission declaring certain costs ineligible on the basis of the conclusions of that audit report relating to the implementation, inter alia, of the MOSAICA contract, which are contested as regards their reasoning and whether they are well founded in Case T-546/11 Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment by the Commission. The applicants submit that:

                           —

                           the Commission would be giving itself the benefit of the services under the contract and the results of the research carried out without paying for them if it were to recover the sum claimed covering the entirety of the services provided by the employee of TECHNION, M. K., for the MOSAICA contract;

                           —

                           the applicants are entitled to claim a refund of the costs relating to the services provided under the MOSAICA contract;

                           —

                           in the event of a refund, the applicants would not only be deprived of an amount corresponding to the services actually provided, but would also have to bear an additional loss since, in addition to having to make the refund, they would have to bear the costs incurred in carrying out the services provided.

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 355, p. 28.


title: Case C-621/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 December 2010 — ‘Balkan and Sea Prоperties’ АDSITS v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna)

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 December 2010 — ‘Balkan and Sea Prоperties’ АDSITS v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna)
   (Case C-621/10)
   2011/C 72/27
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Balkan and Sea Prоperties’ АDSITS

      Defendant: Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 80(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that where there are supplies between connected persons, in so far as the consideration is higher than the open market value, the taxable amount is the open market value of the transaction only if the supplier does not qualify for the full right to deduct the VAT chargeable on the purchase or production of the goods which are supplied?

               2.

               Is Article 80(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, if the supplier has exercised the full right to deduct VAT on goods and services which are the subject of subsequent supplies between connected persons at a price which is higher than the open market value, and that right to deduct input VAT has not been corrected under Articles 173 to 177 of that Directive, a Member State is not permitted to adopt measures whereby the taxable amount is exclusively the open market value?

               3.

               Does Article 80(1) of Directive 2006/112 constitute an exhaustive list of cases representing the circumstances in which the Member States may take measures whereby the taxable amount in respect of supplies is to be the open market value of the transaction?

               4.

               Is a provision of national law such as Article 27(3)(1) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on VAT) permissible in cases other than those listed in Article 80(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112?

               5.

               In a case such as the present does Article 80(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect, and may the domestic court apply it directly?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-381/17: Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/27

         Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
   (Case C-381/17)
   (2017/C 283/37)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Mataija, T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant: Republic of Croatia

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 42(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 60, p. 34), by failing to adopt, by 21 March 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission;

               —

               order the Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment of EUR 9 865,40 per day, as from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU;

               —

               order Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU within the period laid down in Article 42(1) of that Directive.


title: Case C-444/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinas by decision of that court of  30 December 2004  in Aikaterini Stamatelaki v Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (O.A.E.E.)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinas by decision of that court of 30 December 2004 in Aikaterini Stamatelaki v Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (O.A.E.E.)
   (Case C-444/05)
   (2006/C 60/36)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinas of 30 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aikaterini Stamatelaki and Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (Insurance Institution for the Liberal Professions; O.A.E.E.), a legal person governed by public law, on the following questions:

               (A)

               Does a national rule which excludes in all circumstances reimbursement by a domestic insurance body of the cost of treatment of a person insured with it in a private hospital abroad except in cases concerning children up to the age of 14, while on the other hand providing for the possibility of reimbursement of the relevant cost if the treatment in question takes place in a public hospital abroad, following authorisation which is granted provided that the insured person cannot obtain appropriate treatment without undue delay from a hospital that has entered into an agreement with his insurance body, constitute a restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services within the Community which is enshrined in Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty?

               (B)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as dictated by overriding reasons in the general interest, such as in particular the need to avoid the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the Greek social security system, or the maintenance of a balanced hospital and medical service open to all?

               (C)

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, can a restriction of this nature be regarded as permissible in the sense that it is not contrary to the principle of proportionality, that is to say that it does not go beyond what is objectively necessary in order to attain the objective at which it is aimed and that the same result cannot be achieved by less restrictive rules?


title: Case C-283/04: Action brought on 1 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/16

         Action brought on 1 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-283/04)
   (2004/C 217/30)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Albert Nijenhuis, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by retaining certain provisions from the statutes of the firm TPG, namely that the shares of the firm contain a special named share which is owned by the Netherlands State and to which special rights are attached with regard to the approval of certain decisions taken by the authorised organs of the firm, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 and 43 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In 1998 the Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV was split into two independent firms: the Koninklijke KPN NV (KPN), for telecommunications activities, and the TNT POSTGROEP NV (TPG), for logistics and distribution. The shares of the firm TPG contain, alongside normal and preferential shares, a special named share to which certain privileges are attached. That special share is currently owned by the Netherlands State.
   Pursuant to the statutes, special rights are attached to that special share with regard to the approval of certain decisions taken by the competent organs of the firm.
   According to the Commission, the rights attached to the special share restrict the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment. Those special powers may, even if they are not explicitly discriminatory, make it more difficult to purchase shares in the undertaking concerned and discourage investors from other Member States from investing in shares of that undertaking. In particular, those rights result in a considerable restriction of the rights which are normally associated with direct investments in TPG. They may therefore affect the free movement of capital and thus constitute a restriction on the movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56 of the EC Treaty.
   As the special powers also make it possible for the Netherlands State to exercise an influence over the conduct of the firm and the general course of its business, they also influence direct investment and for that reason they may also constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.
   The Commission does not dispute that the ensuring of a well-functioning postal system, as intended by the Netherlands Government, can be a mandatory reason of public interest. The Commission states however that the rights attached to the ‘golden share’ also affect the postal services which do not fall within the meaning of universal services as defined in Directive 97/67/EC (for example express post or logistics services); services of that kind are thus not based on overriding reasons of general interest that justify restrictions of the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty. Moreover, the Netherlands authorities have not made use of all possibilities provided for in Directive 97/67/EC in order to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. In that connection, it points out that in Directive 2002/39/EC there is provision for the Member States to introduce controls and specific procedures to ensure that the reserved services are respected. The use of the mechanism of special powers is not proportionate to the objective pursued. Finally, the discretionary nature of the exercise of the special powers is incompatible with the requirements laid down in the case law of the Court.


title: Case C-506/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
18.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 79/13
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                       Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court
                              Republic                                   of 19 October 1999 in the case of Denkavit Nederland BV
                                                                         against (1) Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
                                                                           Visserij; (2) Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau
                         (Case C-506/99)
                                                                                (Case C-507/99)
                          (2000/C 79/23)                                                          (2000/C 79/24)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                    voor het Bedrijfsleven (Commercial Court of Appeal) of
before the Court of Justice the European Communities on                  19 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on
22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European                       23 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal               Denkavit Nederland BV against (1) Minister van Landbouw,
Service, and Manuel Desantes, national civil servant on                  Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Minister for Agriculture, Nature
secondment to the Commission’s Legal Service, acting as                  Management and Fisheries); (2) Het Voedselvoorzieningsin- en
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office          verkoopbureau (Foodstuffs buying-in and sales agency) on the
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                   following questions:
                                                                         1. Does the fact that the calves in issue come under the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  common organisation of the market in beef and veal mean
                                                                             that the (alleged) power on the part of the Netherlands
                                                                             authorities to determine the point in time at which
                                                                             British calves are to be slaughtered must have a basis in
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the                 Community legislation, in the absence of which the
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                national authorities do not have any such power?
    to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parlia-
    ment and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal                2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
    protection of databases (1) within the period prescribed in              does Article 8 of Directive 90/425/EEC (1) constitute an
    Article 16(1) thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed to             adequate basis for that power?
    fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 10
    and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as          3. If the second question is answered in the negative: is there
    well as the provisions of Article 16(1) of Directive 96/9/EC;            any other basis for that power in Community law?
— declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the             (1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29.
    Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
    provisions;
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                         gerichtshof by order of that court of 16 December 1999
                                                                         in the case of Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsges.m.b.H.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          & CO KG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederöster-
                                                                                reich und Burgenland
                                                                                (Case C-508/99)
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with those
set out in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed in Article 16
of Directive 96/9/EC expired on 1 January 1998.                                                   (2000/C 79/25)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-
(1) OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.                                                 shof (Higher Administrative Court), Austria, of 16 December
(2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.                                            1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 Decemb-
                                                                         er 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Palais am
                                                                         Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsges.m.b.H. & CO KG v Finanzlandesdi-
                                                                         rektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the
                                                                         following question: