title: Case T-282/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Visser's Tankstations v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Visser's Tankstations v Commission
   (Case T-282/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/58)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Case T-141/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Glaverbel v OHIM (Texture of a glass surface) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Glaverbel v OHIM (Texture of a glass surface)
   (Case T-141/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use)
   (2007/C 247/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Glaverbel SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Möbus and T. Koerl, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2006 (Case R 0986/2004-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Glaverbel SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case C-61/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Lithuania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations  — Registration of motor vehicles  — Articles 34 TFUE and 36 TFUE  — Directive 70/311/EEC  — Directive 2007/46/EC  — Driving on the right in a Member State  — Obligation, for the purpose of registration, to reposition to the left-hand side the steering equipment of passenger vehicles positioned on the right-hand side)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-61/12) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Registration of motor vehicles - Articles 34 TFUE and 36 TFUE - Directive 70/311/EEC - Directive 2007/46/EC - Driving on the right in a Member State - Obligation, for the purpose of registration, to reposition to the left-hand side the steering equipment of passenger vehicles positioned on the right-hand side))
   2014/C 142/04
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Linntam, acting as Agent), Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš and A. Nikolajeva, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 34 TFEU, Article 2a of Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 375) and Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting the registration of new right-hand-drive passenger cars despite the compliance of those vehicles with the requirements laid down by the Framework Directive and the separate directives — Refusal to register right-hand-drive passenger cars previously registered in another Member State.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by prohibiting the registration of passenger vehicles having their steering-wheel on the right-hand side, and/or by requiring, for the purpose of registering passenger vehicles with the steering equipment situated on the right-hand side, whether they are new or previously registered in other Member States, the steering-wheel to be repositioned to the left-hand side, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2a of Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ 1970 L 133, p. 10), Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1), and under Article 34 TFEU.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case F-119/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Kerstens v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Admissibility — Organisational Chart — Act adversely affecting an official — Change of posting — Change of duties — Interests of the service — Equivalence of posts — Covert penalty — Misuse of powers)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-119/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Admissibility - Organisational Chart - Act adversely affecting an official - Change of posting - Change of duties - Interests of the service - Equivalence of posts - Covert penalty - Misuse of powers)
   (2008/C 209/128)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) amending the PMO's organisation chart inasmuch as that decision had the effect of reassigning the applicant, at that time head of the ‘Resources’ Unit, to a research position and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 68.


title: Case C-473/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Milano — Sezione X Penale — by order of that Court of 23 October 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlusconi and Giovanni Butti

text:
24.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 21/15
—      error of law, in that the Court of First Instance considered         insurance company and the insurance risk is borne by the
       that the Commission was not required to determine the                latter, are the activities undertaken by that taxable person in
       actual effect on competition and intra-Community trade               execution of the agreement ‘related services performed by
       in its examination of the aid at issue in the light of               insurance brokers and insurance agents’ within the meaning of
       Article 87 EC;                                                       Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive (1)?
—      distortion of the sense of the claims in the application
       and error in law consisting of breach of the procedural              (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
       rules concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
       Court of First Instance did not examine the claims relating              turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
       to the existence of exceptional circumstances and the                    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1-40).
       protection of legitimate expectations;
—      distortion of the sense of the claims in the application
       and error in law consisting of infringement of the
       procedural rules concerning the right to a fair hearing, in
       that the Court of First Instance did not examine the
       claims relating to infringement of Article 10 EC and
       breach of the principle of good and proper administration
       by the Commission;
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
—      error of law consisting of breach of the procedural rules            Ordinario di Milano — Sezione X Penale — by order of
       concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the Court of         that Court of 23 October 2003 in the criminal proceedings
       First Instance did not give a decision on the preparatory            against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlusconi and Giovanni Butti
       inquiry proposed in the application.
                                                                                (Case C-473/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/28)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 7 November
2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
the single taxable entity Arthur Andersen & Co Account-                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               ants c.s.                                    European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                            Milano - Sezione X Penale - (Milan District Court, Tenth
                                                                            Criminal Chamber) of 23 October 2003, received at the Court
                          (Case C-472/03)                                   Registry on 13 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the criminal proceedings against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlus-
                           (2004/C 21/27)                                   coni and Giovanni Butti on the following question:
                                                                            —     Is Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) to be understood
                                                                                as requiring the Member States to establish appropriate
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            penalties not only for failing to disclose company balance
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                 sheets and profit and loss accounts but also for falsifying
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of                             those documents, or other company documents
7 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 12 Nov-                        addressed to the members or the public or any infor-
ember 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecre-                  mation on a company’s assets and liabilities, and econ-
taris van Financiën against the single taxable entity Arthur                      omic and financial situation which the company is
Andersen & Co Accountants c.s. on the following question:                         required to provide in relation to the company or the
                                                                                group of which it forms a part?
Where a taxable person has concluded an agreement with a
(life) assurance company, such as the agreement at issue                    —     Do the requirements that the penalty be effective, pro-
between ACMC and UL, under which that taxable person                              portionate and dissuasive, with which terms the Court
undertakes, for a certain remuneration and with the aid of                        defined the concept of ‘appropriate penalty’ in its judg-
qualified personnel who are expert in the insurance field, most                   ment of 21 September 1989 in Case 68/88 [Commission
of the actual activities related to insurance — including, as a                   v Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR I-2965], refer to the
rule, the taking of decisions that bind the insurance company                     nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or
to enter into insurance contracts and maintaining contact with                    rather also to its application in practice having regard to
the agents and, as the occasion arises, with the insured —                        the structural characteristics of the legal system within
while the insurance contracts are concluded in the name of the                    which it takes effect? and finally
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
—     Does Article 2621 of the Codice Civile (as amended by                Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-
      Legislative Decree No 61 of 11 April 2002), which                    mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
      provides for a sentence of imprisonment of up to                                                 lic of Austria
      18 months and consequently a maximum limitation
      period from the time when the offence is committed of                                          (Case C-476/03)
      four and a half years, satisfy those requirements? That
      occurs in a legal system which provides, after the
      investigating judge completes his investigation and the                                         (2004/C 21/30)
      public prosecutor brings criminal proceedings, for review
      by the investigating judge to ascertain that there is
      sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial and
      for the possibility of three tiers of courts before judgment         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
      is definitive and thus, in the case of a conviction, the             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      penalty is actually imposed. In addition, account must be            17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
      taken of the complexity of the findings required under               Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt and Dr
      Article 2621 of the Codice Civile, given the thresholds              Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      of criminal relevance set by Articles 2621, paragraphs 3
      and 4.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8; English Special Edition: Series-I I        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
    Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.                                                      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
                                                                                2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
                                                                                91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s
                                                                                railways (1) or, at any rate, by failing to inform the
                                                                                Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
Tributaria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 by order                           2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
of that Court of 9 October 2003 in the case of Banca                             Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against Agenzia                             95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) or,
                    Entrate Ufficio Cremona                                      at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
                                                                                the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                         (Case C-475/03)
                                                                           3.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
                          (2004/C 21/29)                                         administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
                                                                                2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
                                                                                infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
                                                                                use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (3) or,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-                          the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
taria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 (Cremona Tax Court,                     under that directive;
Second Chamber) of 9 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in                  4.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
the case of Banca Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against                   proceedings.
Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona on the following question:
Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that it
prohibits a charge to IRAP of the net value of production
deriving from the regular exercise of independent activity to              The period for transposition of those directives expired on
produce or exchange goods or to provide services?                          15 March 2003.
                                                                           (1) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 145 of 3.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 376 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                           (3) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 29.


title: Case T-145/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community trade mark ATLAS — Earlier Benelux trade mark atlasair — Formal requirements — Lodging of a statement setting out the grounds for the action — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS)
   (Case T-145/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark ATLAS - Earlier Benelux trade mark atlasair - Formal requirements - Lodging of a statement setting out the grounds for the action - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2011/C 186/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Atlas Air, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); Atlas Air, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann, then R. Dissmann and J. Guhn, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1) relating to nullity proceedings between Atlas Air, Inc. and Atlas Transport GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Atlas Transport GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Atlas Air, Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case C-233/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 16 February 2005 in V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 16 February 2005 in V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-233/05)
   (2005/C 205/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) of 16 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers and Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst on the following questions:

               1(a)

               In the case in which a horse that has not been broken in is trained to make it suitable for certain uses, such as, for example, use as a riding horse, is a new article created and is there therefore production within the terms of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive? (1)

               1(b)

               In the case in which, for example, a horse which is already suitable for certain uses such as referred to in Question 1(a) above is trained in such a way that it is capable of participating in (dressage) competitions at a higher level than before such training, is there production as referred to in Question 1(a) above?

               2.

               Is it material to the reply to these questions whether there is a change to the horse which can be measured objectively, such as, for example, it being or becoming entitled to compete in a higher dressage class?

               3.

               Does it make any difference in this regard whether the horse concerned also actually attains the intended objective (the supply by the producer) or that the horse does not attain the objective sought by its training on account of problems relating to health or ability, for example?

               4.

               What are the consequences of the answer to Questions 2 and 3 having regard to the fact that this case concerns a recurrent charge where the tax owed is paid periodically by declaration?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member State relating to turnover taxes— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145 of 13 June 1977, p. 1).


title: Case C-211/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2015 by Orange, formerly France Télécom, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 26 February 2015 in Case T-385/12 Orange v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/6

         Appeal brought on 8 May 2015 by Orange, formerly France Télécom, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 26 February 2015 in Case T-385/12 Orange v Commission
   (Case C-211/15 P)
   (2015/C 245/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               give final judgment on the substance of the matter in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court and grant the order sought by Orange at first instance;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on several grounds of appeal.
   In the first place, it is alleged that the General Court erred in law in finding that the criteria for finding that there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU had been satisfied. First, the General Court erred in law in considering that Orange had benefited from an advantage, despite the fact that the measure aimed to remove the structural disadvantage which resulted from the continued application of the provision laid down by the Law of 1990 and aimed to enable there to be full competition in the context of the complete liberalisation of the telecommunications markets. Second, the appellant also complains that the General Court erred in law in concluding that, in order to uphold the selective character of the contested measure, it was not necessary in the circumstances of the case to ascertain whether that measure might differentiate between operators in a factually and legally comparable situation, despite the fact that, in the circumstances of the case, no other undertaking could have been included in the framework of reference decided upon by the Commission. Third, the General Court failed to comply with the duty to state the reasons for its decision and erred in law in not proceeding to assess any of the arguments submitted by the appellant for considering the measure to be incapable of distorting or threatening to distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
   In the second place, it is alleged that the General Court erred in law when adopting the Commission’s analysis with regard to the compatibility of the measure at issue. First, the General Court failed to comply with the duty to state the reasons for its decision and distorted the facts in concluding that Article 30 of the Law of 1996, as amended, did not make any provision concerning the purpose of the exceptional lump-sum contribution and in concluding that that article does not therefore exclude the Commission’s conclusion according to which the exceptional lump-sum contribution did not constitute a social charge for the undertaking. Second, the General Court is alleged to have failed to comply with the duty to state the reasons for its decision when it adopted the Commission’s assessment of the facts and merely stated that the precedent established in the ‘La Poste’ case was not applicable to that of France Télécom (Orange).
   Lastly, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the period in which the aid defined by the decision was neutralised by the exceptional lump-sum contribution. In particular, the General court distorted the facts and substituted its own reasoning for that of contested decision when it affirmed that the discontinuance of the charges of compensation and over-compensation formed part of the aid defined in Article 1 of the contested decision.


title: Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management — Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Series or family of trade marks — Likelihood of association — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management)
      (Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Series or family of trade marks - Likelihood of association - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)
      (2015/C 016/41)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: UniCredit SpA, formerly UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: J. Zindel, lawyer)

         Re:

      Actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the actions.

                  2)

                  Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration.

                  3)

                  Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds.

                  4)

                  Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-35/02: Action brought on 13 February 2002 by ALITALIA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/57
Action brought on 20 February 2002 by EURL Le Levant                     financial investment exclusively in order to benefit from a tax
001 and Others against the Commission of the European                    break. The applicants also maintain that the Commission has
                          Communities                                    infringed Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding.
                                                                         They submit that Article 4(7) of that directive can apply only
                                                                         to shipyards or ship operators, and in no circumstances to
                         (Case T-34/02)                                  private investors.
                       (2002/C 109/109)
                                                                         In addition, the applicants plead infringement of the principles
                                                                         of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty
                   (Language of the case: French)                        and failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of reasons. Moreover, by ordering the recovery of
                                                                         the alleged aid when that is contrary to the abovementioned
                                                                         general principles of law, the Commission has infringed
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Article 14 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (2).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2002 by the company
EURL Le Levant 001 and Others, represented by Pierre Kirch,              According to the applicants, the contested decision also
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                       contains manifest errors of assessment and is based on material
                                                                         inaccuracies.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         In addition, the applicants plead infringement of Article 153(2)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 on                 of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission does not take into
      the State aid implemented by France in the form of                 account the interests of the applicants, who are consumers of
      development assistance for the cruise vessel ‘Le Levant’,          financial services. Lastly, they claim that the Commission has
      built by Alstom Leroux Naval for operation in Saint-               infringed Article 2 of Regulation No 69/2001 (3) by failing to
      Pierre-et-Miquelon (State aid C 74/99 — France), publi-            apply the de minimis rule.
      shed in OJ L 327 of 12 December 2001, p. 37;
                                                                         (1) Rectifying Finance Law No 86-824 of 11 July 1986, published in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             JORF (Official Journal of the French Republic) of 12 July 1986,
                                                                             p. 8688.
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                             down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
                                                                         (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
                                                                             the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de
The applicants in this case are one-man undertakings with                    minimis aid (OJ L 10 of 13.1.2001, p. 30).
limited liability and the persons who formed those undertak-
ings. Those persons have invested, through a one-man limited
liability undertaking (EURL), in the vessel ‘Le Levant’. The
investment could be inferred from their taxable income, in
accordance with the French ‘Loi Pons’ (1). The applicants
are contesting the Commission’s decision declaring those
companies to be recipients of State aid in consequence of the
construction of the vessel ‘Le Levant’.                                  Action brought on 13 February 2002 by ALITALIA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of their action, the applicants assert that the
Commission has exceeded its powers by adopting a decision                                          (Case T-35/02)
the effect of which is to require a Member State to recover
from private individuals, and not from undertakings within                                       (2002/C 109/110)
the meaning of Community law, the amount of the State aid.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicants further maintain that the Commission has
infringed their rights of defence and their right to a fair
hearing, by not allowing them effectively to submit their
observations prior to the adoption of the decision.                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 13 February 2002 by ALITALIA,
Next, the applicants deny that they are undertakings within              represented by Guido Alpa, Mario Siragusa, Gian Michele
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In the applicants’        Roberti, Giuseppe Scassellati and Francesca Maria Moretti,
view, they are merely private investors who have made a                  lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/58                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Sanpaolo IMI spa, represented by Alberto Santa Maria, Claudio
                                                                          Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and Marcello Valenti,
—     order the Commission to pay compensation for the                    lawyers.
      damage, to be quantified or in such sum as the Court
      shall think fit, caused to Alitalia by the first decision and
      the conditions imposed thereby and by the fact of that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      measure having been reproduced by means of the second
      decision;                                                           —     annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December
                                                                                2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                                on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
—     order the Commission to pay interest on the amount
                                                                                requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or
      referred to above for the period up to the date of
                                                                                lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
      payment;
                                                                                Article 253 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
                                                                                Articles 87 and 77 and with Council Regulation
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    No 659/1999, as expounded in the application;
                                                                          —     alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
                                                                                part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
                                                                                Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
                                                                                or (c) of the EC Treaty, as expounded in the application;
By the present action, Alitalia, the same applicant as in Cases
T-296/97 (1) and T-301/01 (2), is seeking an order requiring              —     in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event
the defendant to pay compensation for the damage allegedly                      that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
caused by Commission Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997                         23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
concerning the recapitalisation of the applicant company and                    17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
by the conditions imposed thereby, which it claims to have                      constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible
been reproduced, following the annulment of that first decision                 with the common market, rule that the contested decision
by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July                       of the Commission cannot have any retroactive effect;
2000 in the abovementioned Case T-296/97, by Decision
2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001.                                              —     subject to the reservation of all rights.
The pleas of illegality are the same as those advanced in the
abovementioned cases.                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
    Case T-296/97 Alitalia v Commission [2000] ECR II-3871.               put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
(2) Case T-301/01 Alitalia v Commission (OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002,
    p. 24).
                                                                          Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Intesabci
                                                                          Spa against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Sanpaolo                                                       ties
IMI spa against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities                                                               (Case T-39/02)
                           (Case T-37/02)                                                          (2002/C 109/112)
                         (2002/C 109/111)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Intesabci Spa, represented by Alberto Santa Maria, Claudio
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and Marcello Valenti,
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca                         lawyers.


title: Case C-623/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Adrien Daxhelet v État Belge — SPF Finances

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Adrien Daxhelet v État Belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-623/10)
   2011/C 80/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adrien Daxhelet

      Defendant: État Belge — SPF Finances

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously laid down in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other, preclude national legislation — in the present case, Article 9(2) of the Belgian Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’arbitrage (now called the Cour constitutionnelle) — under which the national courts are required to follow the case-law flowing from judgments delivered by a court which occupies a higher rank in the national court system (in the present case, the Cour constitutionnelle, referred to above) in actions for annulment of provisions of domestic law brought before them, where those actions are based on an alleged infringement of provisions of European Union law, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal order and takes precedence over domestic law?

               2.

               Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously laid down in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude national legislation — in the present case, Article 26(4) of the Belgian Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’arbitrage (now called the Cour constitutionnelle), as amended by the Law of 12 July 2009, whether read separately or in conjunction with Article 9(2) of that Special Law of 6 January 1989 — under which the national courts are required to refer to a court which occupies a higher rank in the national court system (in the present case, the Cour constitutionnelle, referred to above), for a preliminary ruling, any question concerning the interpretation of provisions of European Union law, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal order and takes precedence over domestic law, where those provisions are also laid down in the national Constitution and where the national courts suppose those provisions to have been infringed in the circumstances of the disputes brought before them, with the result that those courts have been divested of jurisdiction to apply European Union law immediately, at the very least in cases where the higher court has already ruled on an identical issue?


title: Case T-229/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Germany v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/37

         Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-229/17)
   (2017/C 195/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/133 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 21, p. 113),

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sports areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 22, p. 62),

               —

               annul the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32), in so far as it relates to harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’,

               —

               annul the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32), in so far as it relates to harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sports areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with essential procedural requirements
               The Federal Republic of Germany submits that the Commission infringed essential procedural rules laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (1) when it adopted the contested decisions. The Commission failed to refer the matter to the Committee established under Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, (2) the envisaged consultation of the relevant European standardisation body is flawed and the decisions were not taken ‘in the light of the opinion’ of the Committee established under Article 5 of that directive.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons
               By its second plea, the applicant claims that the contested decisions fail to comply with the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, since they do not take a position on the question which is central to Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, namely whether the relevant harmonised standards are consistent with the corresponding mandate and ensure compliance with the basic requirements for buildings. It follows that neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor the General Court is able to assess the essential legal and factual grounds on which the Commission relied.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011
               Furthermore, the applicant claims that the contested decisions and communications infringe the substantive provisions of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.

                           —

                           Firstly, the contested decisions and communication infringe the first and second subparagraphs of Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, since, contrary to the abovementioned provisions, the Commission did not examine the extent to which the harmonised standards in question were consistent with the corresponding mandate and thus failed to recognise that they were not so consistent.

                           —

                           Secondly, the contested decisions and communication infringe Article 18(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1) and (2) and the first subparagraph of Article 17(3), of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. The Commission overlooked the fact that the standards in question do not set out any procedures or criteria for the assessment of the supply of other allegedly hazardous substances, are thus incomplete with regard to an essential characteristic of construction products and accordingly jeopardise compliance with the basic requirements for buildings.

                           —

                           Finally, the Commission made a further error of assessment when adopting the contested measures in that it failed to recognise the possibility afforded by Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 to publish the reference to a harmonised standard in the Official Journal together with the restriction proposed by the applicant.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5).

      (2)  Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).


title: Case T-470/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/38

         Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)
   (Case T-470/17)
   (2017/C 309/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sensotek GmbH (Reichenbach an der Fils, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senso Tecnologie Srl (Rome, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘sensotek’ — Application for registration No 10 648 871

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1953/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-570/10: Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-570/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/64
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case C-425/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Self-employed frontier workers — Nationals of a Member State of the Union — Business income received in that Member State — Transfer of residence to Switzerland — Refusal of a tax advantage in that Member State because of the transfer of residence)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz
   (Case C-425/11) (1)

   (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Nationals of a Member State of the Union - Business income received in that Member State - Transfer of residence to Switzerland - Refusal of a tax advantage in that Member State because of the transfer of residence)
   2013/C 114/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Katja Ettwein

      Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, approved in the name of the Community, by decision of the Council and the Commission of 4 April 2002 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), in particular Articles 1, 2, 11, 16 and 21 and Articles 9, 13 and 15 of Annex I — Direct taxation of frontier workers — Legislation of a Member State allowing joint taxation of spouses (‘Ehegattensplitting’) if they live in a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area but not if they live in the Swiss Confederation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(a) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and Articles 9(2), 13(1) and 15(2) of Annex I to that Agreement must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which refuses the benefit of joint taxation with the use of the ‘splitting’ method, provided for by that legislation, to spouses who are nationals of that State and subject to income tax in that State on their entire taxable income, on the sole ground that their residence is situated in the territory of the Swiss Confederation.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Joined Cases T-261/13 and T-86/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Netherlands v Commission (HICP — Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 — Harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (HICP-CT) — Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 — Owner-occupied housing price indices — Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 — Eurostat — Committee procedure — Implementing measures — Regulatory procedure with scrutiny)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-261/13 and T-86/14) (1)

   ((HICP - Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 - Harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (HICP-CT) - Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 - Owner-occupied housing price indices - Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 - Eurostat - Committee procedure - Implementing measures - Regulatory procedure with scrutiny))
   (2015/C 389/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented, in Case T-261/13, by M. Bulterman, J. Langer and B. Koopman and, in Case T-86/14, by M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-261/13, an application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 of 11 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 2214/96 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP): transmission and dissemination of sub-indices of the HICP, as regards establishing harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (OJ 2013 L 41, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013 as well as, in Case T-86/14, an application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in Case T-261/13, Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 of 11 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 2214/96 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP): transmission and dissemination of sub-indices of the HICP, as regards establishing harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates;

               2.

               Annuls, in Case T-86/14, Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-96/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet
   (Case C-96/16)
   (2016/C 145/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Santander, S.A.

      Defendants: Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the business practice of assigning or purchasing debts without offering the consumer the opportunity to extinguish the debt by paying the price, interest, expenses and costs of the proceedings to the assignee comply with EU law, and specifically with Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 C of the Treaty of Lisbon, and Articles 4(2), 12 and 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? (1)

               2.

               Is that business practice of purchasing a consumer’s debt for a negligible price without his consent or knowledge, without including that practice as a general condition or unfair term imposed in the agreement, and without giving the consumer the opportunity to participate in that operation by purchasing and thus extinguishing the debt, compatible with the principles laid down in Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and, by extension, with the principle of effectiveness and with Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of that directive?

               3.

               For the purpose of safeguarding the protection of consumers and users and the Community case-law which develops it, is it in accordance with European law, Directive 93/13, and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, to establish as an unequivocal criterion that, in unsecured loan agreements concluded with consumers, a non-negotiated term which sets a default interest rate that exceeds by more than two percentage points the basic contract rate of interest (‘ordinary interest’) is unfair?

               4.

               For the purpose of safeguarding the protection of consumers and users and the Community case-law which develops it, is it in accordance with European law, Directive 93/13, and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, to establish, as a consequence, that ordinary interest will continue to accrue until the debt has been paid in full?

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-654/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-654/16)
   (2017/C 121/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Question referred

   Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found between, on the one hand, the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and, on the other, one or more sellers, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-118/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 2000/37/EC)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-118/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 2000/37/EC)
   (2004/C 228/21)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-118/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and H. Støvlbæk) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/37/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139, p. 25), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/37/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 243, 1.10.2005

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/20

         (2005/C 257/34)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

      OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

      OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

      OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

      OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

      OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-248/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Research and development — Rules for the deduction of costs incurred abroad)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-248/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Research and development - Rules for the deduction of costs incurred abroad)
   (2008/C 116/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC and 49 EC and Articles 31 EEA and 36 EEA — Rules for deducting costs for research and development and technological innovation incurred abroad more rigorous than those applicable to costs incurred in Spain
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force rules for the deduction of costs relating to research and development and technological innovation which are less favourable in respect of costs incurred abroad than costs incurred in Spain — such rules deriving from Article 35 of the Law on corporation tax, as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 — the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, and the corresponding articles in the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 36 of that Agreement;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case F-49/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 January 2015  — DQ and Others v European Parliament

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 January 2015 — DQ and Others v European Parliament
   (Case F-49/14) (1)

   (2015/C 081/40)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1/9/14, p. 62.


title: Case C-436/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. ltd., Brave Bulk Transport ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 23 — Jurisdiction clause — Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies — Action for damages — Joint and several liability of representatives of one of those companies for tortious acts — Ability of the representatives to rely upon that clause)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. ltd., Brave Bulk Transport ltd
   (Case C-436/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause - Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies - Action for damages - Joint and several liability of representatives of one of those companies for tortious acts - Ability of the representatives to rely upon that clause))
   (2017/C 283/15)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Areios Pagos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias

      Defendants: Malcon Navigation Co. ltd., Brave Bulk Transport ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies cannot be relied upon by the representatives of one of them to dispute the jurisdiction of a court over an action for damages which aims to render them jointly and severally liable for supposedly tortious acts carried out in the performance of their duties.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-224/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 13 May 2011 — BGŻ Leasing Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 13 May 2011 — BGŻ Leasing Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
   (Case C-224/11)
   2011/C 219/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: BGŻ Leasing Sp. z o. o.

      Defendant and respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Must Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that the service providing insurance for a leased item and the leasing service are to be treated as separate services or as one single, comprehensive, composite leasing service?

               (b)

               If the answer to the first question is that the service providing insurance for a leased item and the leasing service are to be treated as separate services, must Article 135(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112, in conjunction with Article 28 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the service providing insurance for a leased item is to be exempt in the case where the lessor insures that item and charges the costs of that insurance to the lessee?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-445/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — IMC Securities BV v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (Directive 2003/6/EC — Market manipulation — Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — IMC Securities BV v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten
   (Case C-445/09) (1)

   (Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level)
   2011/C 269/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: IMC Securities BV

      Respondent: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a), second indent, of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) — Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level — Meaning — Transactions and orders bringing about a brief fluctuation of prices

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(a), second indent, of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) must be interpreted as not requiring, in order for the price of one or more financial instruments to be considered to have been fixed at an abnormal or artificial level, that that price must maintain an abnormal or artificial level for more than a certain duration.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.


title: Case T-1/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — SNCM v Commission (State aid — Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM — Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan — Private investor in a market economy test — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Social policy of the Member States — Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — SNCM v Commission
   (Case T-1/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM - Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan - Private investor in a market economy test - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Social policy of the Member States - Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))
   (2017/C 277/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, C. Froitzheim and A. Dupuis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Comité d’entreprise de la Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Corsica Ferries France (Bastia, France) (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013, concerning State aid SA.16237 (C 58/2002) (ex N 118/2002) implemented by France in favour of SNCM.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and Corsica Ferries France;

               3.

               Orders the comité d’entreprise de la Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case F-105/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 May 2014  — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 May 2014 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-105/13) (1)

   2014/C 421/97
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014, p. 21.


title: Case C-646/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection — Organisation of border crossing by the authorities of one Member State for the purpose of transit to another Member State — Entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds — Article 2(m) — Definition of a ‘visa’ — Article 12 — Issuing of a visa — Article 13 — Irregular crossing of an external border)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/16

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari
   (Case C-646/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection - Organisation of border crossing by the authorities of one Member State for the purpose of transit to another Member State - Entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds - Article 2(m) - Definition of a ‘visa’ - Article 12 - Issuing of a visa - Article 13 - Irregular crossing of an external border))
   (2017/C 309/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 2(m) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the authorities of one Member State, faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, tolerate the entry into its territory of such nationals who do not fulfil the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, is not tantamount to the issuing of a ‘visa’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 604/2013.

               2.

               Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-434/04: Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Alex Milbert and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/42

         Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Alex Milbert and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-434/04)
   (2005/C 6/83)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Alex Milbert, residing in Hesperange (Luxembourg), Imre Czigàny, residing in Rhode St. Genèse (Belgium), José Manuel De la Cruz González, residing in Brussels, Viviane Deveen, residing in Overijse (Belgium), Mohammad Reza Fardoom, residing in Roodt-sur-Syre (Luxembourg), Laura Gnemmi, residing in Hünsdorf (Luxembourg), Marie-José Reinard, residing in Bertrange (Luxembourg), Vassilios Stergiou, residing in Kraainem (Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis, residing in Brussels, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2003 procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicants' names, and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the allocation of promotion points under the 2003 procedure in relation to the applicants;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, Commission officials, were not promoted under the 2003 procedure. By their action, they question the system used by the Commission for that procedure, in so far as that system provides for the addition to merit and seniority points awarded to each official, ‘reliquat’ points awarded to officials on the list of officials eligible for promotion in the previous procedure but not promoted, as well as points awarded by the Directorates-General, special transitional points, points in the interests of the service and ‘appeal’ points awarded by the Promotions Committee. The applicants claim that by operating such a system the Commission did not, in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the General Provisions for its implementation, consider the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion.
   On the same basis, the applicants plead breach of the principle of non-discrimination, of the ban on arbitrary procedures, of the duty to state reasons, of the principle of legitimate expectations, of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse facit’ and of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials.


title: Case C-404/10 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2010 the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 9 June 2010 in Case T-237/05 Éditions Odile SAS v Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/19

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2010 the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 9 June 2010 in Case T-237/05 Éditions Odile SAS v Commission
   (Case C-404/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 274/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, O. Beynet, and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Lagardère SCA

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2010, Case T-237/05, Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v Commission, in that it annuls the Commission Decision of 7 April 2005, refusing access to documents concerning the merger control case NO COMP/M.2978;

               —

               Dismiss the respondent’s application for annulment brought before the General Court and give a final ruling on the questions which form the subject-matter of the present appeal;

               —

               Order the appellant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in respect of both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission bases its appeal on two pleas in law.
   By its first plea in law, the appellant claims that the General Court misinterpreted Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) by failing to take account of, for the purposes of the interpretation of the exceptions to the right of access to documents, the provisions of Council Regulation No 4064/89 (2) on concentrations between undertakings. The general rules on rights of access should take account of the specific features of competition proceedings and the confidentiality guarantees offered to undertakings concerned by a concentration.
   By its second plea in law, which comprises five parts, the Commission complains of misinterpretation of, by the General Court, of Article 4(2) and (3) of the above-mentioned Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it assumed that the appellant had an obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination of each of the documents covered by a request for access, even in cases manifestly covered by an exception (first part). The Commission also disputes the restrictive interpretation made by the General Court of the exception regarding the protection of the purpose of inspections and audit investigations, according to which that exception cannot apply after the adoption by the Commission of its merger control decision closing the administrative procedure (second part). The appellant also claims that the General Court made a manifest error of law in requiring, first, that a concrete and individual examination of the documents be carried out by the Commission, with a description of the contents, second, by requiring consultation with third parties, despite the manifest nature of the application of the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests (third part). In addition, the Commission maintained that the General Court made an error of law made in so far as it annulled its decision to refuse access to internal documents, where those documents are within the scope of the exception “the decision-making process” mentioned in Article 4(3), second subparagraph (fourth part). Finally, the appellant claims that there was a misinterpretation of Article 4(6) of the above-mentioned Regulation (fifth part).

      (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 2001L 14, p. 45)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L395, p. 1)