title: Case T-340/11: Action brought on 23 June 2011 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/25

         Action brought on 23 June 2011 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission
   (Case T-340/11)
   2011/C 282/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyon, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant submits that the Court should:

               —

               establish the liability of the European Union for:

                           —

                           the European Commission’s unlawful decision of 10 November 1997 concerning State aid N 679/97;

                           —

                           the Commission’s failure to act following the formal establishment of that unlawfulness in the letter addressed to the French authorities on 8 May 2003;

               —

               order the European Commission to compensate in full for the loss resulting for the applicants from the wrongful acts referred to in the application, which loss encompasses:

                           —

                           the amount of the tax paid for the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2000;

                           —

                           the fees incurred for the legal proceedings brought in order to obtain reimbursement of the tax paid for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002;

                           —

                           the fees incurred for the present legal proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging wrongful acts committed due to the unlawfulness of the Commission decision of 10 November 1997. In examining the radio broadcasting aid scheme in 1997, the Commission declared it to be compatible with the Treaty rules, without examining the manner in which that aid scheme was financed, which it was however required to do according to the Court of Justice’s well-established case-law in the area, since the financing was an integral part of the aid scheme in question. The decision thus adopted by the Commission is unlawful and is a wrongful act entailing non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration resulting from the Commission’s failure, in 2003, to compensate for the harmful effects of its 1997 decision. The Commission found that its decision of 19 November 1997 was unlawful at the latest on 8 May 2003, when it addressed a letter to the French authorities, stating that the detailed rules for financing the radio broadcasting aid scheme, as approved most recently by the decision of 10 November 1997, were contrary to the Treaty rules. However, the Commission did not take any measures to remedy the unlawful situation thus established. It is on that basis that the applicants consider that the Commission’s failure to compensate for the harmful effects of the unlawful decision of 1997 infringes the principle of sound administration, which is a general principle of European Union law, and is therefore such as to entail liability on the part of the European Union.


title: Case C-213/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 May 2012 — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira and Others v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 May 2012 — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira and Others v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.
   (Case C-213/12)
   2012/C 209/07
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira

      Respondent: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(1) and Article 3 of the Second Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Third Directive, (2) be interpreted as preventing national legislation from excluding any entitlement to compensation for non-financial damage for members of the driver’s family arising from the driver’s death when the accident is attributed exclusively to the driver’s fault?

      (1)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (2)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-123/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Recruitment of foreigners by private language schools)

text:
No C 229/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
       did not inform the applicant in writing, before                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       1 September 1 990, of the result of his application.                                       of 6 June 1995
                                                                         in Case C-434/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(') OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1993 .                                       the Raad van State, Netherlands ): Ahmet Bozkurt v.
( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Justitie ( 1 )
                                                                         (Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey —
                                                                         Decision of the Association Council — Freedom of
                                                                         movement for workers — International lorry-driver —
                                                                             Permanent incapacity for work — Right to remain)
                                                                                95/C 229/03
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                            of 1 June 1995
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive text will be published
         in Case C-123/94 : Commission of the European                                  in the European Court Reports)
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (^
 (Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment —                    In Case C-434/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
    Recruitment of foreigners by private language schools)
                                                                         of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State ( Council of State,
                             ( 95/C 229/02 )                             Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         pending before that court between Ahmet Bozkurt and the
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        Staatssecretaris van Justitie on the interpretation of Article 2
                                                                         of Decision No 2/76 of 20 December 1976 and Article 6 of
                                                                         Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         Council established by the agreement establishing an
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         Association between the European Economic Community
                                                                         and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara and
 In Case C-123/94 : Commission of the European                           approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
 Communities ( Agent: Maria Patakia ) v. Hellenic Republic                64/732/EEC ( 2 ).
 (Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Evi Skandalou ) —
 application for a declaration that, by maintaining in force
 the provisions of Article 70 of Decree Law No 2545/1940                 The Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 and Decision No 46508 of 10/ 17 May 1976 of the Minister                 F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and
                                                                          C. Gulmann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, C. N.
 for National Education and Religious Affairs ( as
                                                                          Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
 subsequently amended ), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
 fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 3 ( 1 ) of        Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B.
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968                 Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
 on       freedom    of movement         for workers    within  the       Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 1995 in which it
                                                                          ruled :
 Community ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
 C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet               1.  in order to ascertain whether a Turkish worker
 and L. Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                         employed as an international lorry-driver belongs to the
 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1 995 , in               legitimate labour force of a Member State, for the
 which it :                                                                   purposes of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
                                                                              19 September 1980 of the Association Council
  1 . declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of                established by the agreement establishing and
        Article 70 of Decree Law No 2545/1940 and Decision                    Association between the European Economic
        No 46508 of 10/17 May 1976 of the Minister for                        Community and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963
        National Education and Religious Affairs (as                          in Ankara and approved on behalfof the Community by
        subsequently amended), the Hellenic Republic has failed               Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, it
        to fulfil its obligations under Community law, more                   is for the national court to determine whether the
        specifically Article 48 (2) of the EC Treaty and Article 3            applicant's employment relationship retained a
        (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of                        sufficiently close link with the territory of the Member
        15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                    State, and, in so doing, to take account, in particular, of
        within the Community;                                                 the place where he was hired, the territory on which the
                                                                              paid employment is based and the applicable national
                                                                              legislation in the field ofemployment and social security
  2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          law;
  (•) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                       2 . the existence of legal employment in a Member State
  (2 ) OJ No L 257, 19 . 10 . 1968 , p . 2 .                                   within the meaning ofArticle 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80,
                                                                               cited above, can be established in the case of a Turkish
                                                                               worker who was not required by the national legislation


title: Case C-454/04: Action brought on 28 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/8

         Action brought on 28 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-454/04)
   (2004/C 314/15)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 212 of 7.8.2001, p. 12.


title: Case T-207/13: Action brought on 10 April 2013 — 1872 Holdings/OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Action brought on 10 April 2013 — 1872 Holdings/OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)
   (Case T-207/13)
   2013/C 171/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1872 Holdings vof (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Havana Club International, SA (Havana, Cuba)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Marked of 31 January 2013 in case R 684/2012-1;

               —

               Order the Office to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘THE SPIRIT OF CUBA’ for goods and services of classes 33, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 109 106

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application of invalidity was based on Articles 52(1)(a) and 7 (1)(b), (c) and (g) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-269/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Xeda International/Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/31

         Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Xeda International/Commission
   (Case T-269/11)
   2011/C 211/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the Application admissible and well-founded.

               —

               Annul the Contested Decision.

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ L 59, p. 71).
   As a result of the contested Decision, the entry for ethoxyquin in Decision 2008/941/EC has been deleted and ethoxyquin shall not be included as an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. As a result, the applicant will no longer be allowed to produce and sell ethoxyquin and ethoxyquin-based products in the European Union and will lose its product registrations in the Member States as of 3 September 2011.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested Decision effectively bans the use of ethoxyquin in plant protection products on the basis of a scientific concern and alleged data gaps mentioned in recital 6 thereof, each of which was either adequately addressed by the applicant or was not a concern justifying non-inclusion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right of defence and essential procedural requirements. According to the applicant the contested Decision infringes the applicant’s right of defence and its right to a fair hearing by failing to give the applicant sufficient opportunity and time to address concerns raised late in the procedure, and failing to carefully consider its comments in relation to alleged data gaps.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breaches of fundamental principles of EU law.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the contested Decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s legitimate expectations arising out of the resubmission procedure under Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008.

                           —

                           The applicant also submits that the contested Decision is disproportionate given the choice of measures available to the Commission and the disadvantages caused in relation to the aims pursued.


title: Case C-530/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-530/06) (1)

   (2007/C 315/54)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Tribunal de Grande Instance (First Chamber), Lyon, by judgment of that court of 25 February 1998, in the case of SA Gougenheim Imprimerie Publicité v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Rhône (Case C-72/98)

text:
C 151/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.5.98
    of equal treatment in relation to the second tendering          Reference for a preliminary ruling by Tribunal de Grande
    procedure, and error in law in relation to the evidence         Instance (First Chamber), Lyon, by judgment of that court
    that the principle of equal treatment was infringed at          of 25 February 1998, in the case of SA Gougenheim
    the time of the second tendering procedure,                     Imprimerie PubliciteÂ v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du
                                                                                Rhône
Ð infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC)                                     (Case C-72/98)
    No 3389/73 (3) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 151/10)
    No 727/70 (4) concerning the Commission's wide
    discretion and its right not to accept favourable
    tenders made in tendering procedures (contested
    Commission decisions of 7 August and 16 November
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    1990), and incorrect appraisal as to whether the
                                                                    European Communities by an judgment of the First
    contested decisions are measures of economic policy,
                                                                    Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional
                                                                    Court), Lyon, which was received at the Court Registry on
Ð infringement of the audi alteram partem principle and             16 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SA
    of the principle of equality of the parties,                    Gougenheim Imprimerie PubliciteÂ v. Directeur des Services
                                                                    Fiscaux du Rhône, on the following questions:
Ð inappropriate application to the actual events of the
    prohibition of discrimination (principle of equal
                                                                    1. Where a Directive (Council Directive 73/80/EEC (1))
    treatment) and of the increase of the guarantee at the
                                                                        amends an earlier Directive (Council Directive 69/335/
    time of the fourth tendering procedure,
                                                                        EEC (2)) and specifies that the capital duty with which
                                                                        they are concerned is to be 1 % as from 1 January
Ð infringement and incorrect legal assessment of the                    1976, and the domestic law of a Member State
    validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 395/                     maintains a higher rate, and where in particular a
    90 (5) regarding the reduction of the time limit                    third Directive (Council Directive 85/303/EEC (3))
    in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                         later provides that the Member States are to exempt
    No 3389/73.                                                         from capital duty transactions which were, as at 1 July
                                                                        1984, exempted or taxed at a rate of 0,50 % or less,
                                                                        must it be considered in the absence of a rate
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998, p. 23.
                                                                        applicable under domestic law:
(2) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 345, 15.12.1973, p. 47.
(4) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 42, 16.2.1990, p. 46.                                          Ð either that, as a result of non-transposition into
                                                                            domestic law of the rate fixed by the Community
                                                                            provision and by reason of the principle of non-
                                                                            application of downward direct effect', no legally
                                                                            applicable rate existed,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di                Ð or that the domestic law of that Member State was
Stato (Council of State) by order of that court of                          only partially inapplicable' having regard to the
20 January 1998, in the case of Questore di Verona (Chief                   Community        Directive   73/80/EEC     and    in
            of Police of Verona) v. Diego Zenatti                           consequence the application of a rate of 1 %
                        (Case C-67/98)                                      should be allowed on the basis of the principle of
                                                                            downward direct effect where there is a clear and
                         (98/C 151/09)                                      precise provision which involves no other
                                                                            condition'?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
                                                                    2. If, by virtue of the application of Directive 73/80/EEC,
Stato of 20 January 1998, which was received at the
                                                                        a positive answer were to be given regarding the
Court Registry on 13 March 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                        second alternative set out above, but having regard to
ruling in the case of Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti
                                                                        the fact that Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
on the following questions:
                                                                        amended Article 7(2) of the latter as from its entry
                                                                        into force on 1 January 1986 by stating that Member
Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services                   States may either exempt from capital duty all
preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in               transactions . . . or charge duty on them at a single
view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to                rate not exceeding 1 %' and to the fact that, by that
prevent fraud that justify it?                                          date, a Member State had not yet transposed the latter
                                                                        directive into its internal law but, on the contrary,
                                                                        retained a rate far higher than the 1 % previously
                                                                        authorised:
 ---pagebreak--- 16.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 151/7
    What must be the rate that it is legally appropriate to       requirements laid down in the Annex and Article 5) and
    adopt, in the absence of any applicable domestic law          on 31 December 1994 (as regards the remainder of the
    and of any choice thus made by the Member State               provisions).
    within the bracket allowed by the directive?
                                                                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
                                                                  (2) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998, p. 12.
    In other words, what must be the scope of the
    directive in such circumstances and must it be
    considered that the applicable rate is: 1 %? 0 %? and
    why not 0,25 % or 0,50 %?
(1) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                         Removal from the register of Case C-287/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 151/12)
                                                                  By order of 17 September 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-287/97: (Reference
                                                                  for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by the Commission of              Bassano del Grappa): Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain            Sociale S. Rocco Scarl.
                       (Case C-73/98)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                        (98/C 151/11)
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Juan Guerra FernaÂndez and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-160/97 (1)
GeÂrard Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                                 (98/C 151/13)
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                  By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-160/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
    or to notify, the laws, regulations or administrative         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and
    controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (1) as amended
    by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
    1993, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty, and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-173/97 (1)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 151/14)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-173/97: Commission
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to              of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
those in Case C-66/98 (2); the period for implemen-
tation expired on 31 December 1993 (as regards the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.


title: Case T-169/05: Action brought on 20 April 2005 by Jean-Louis Giraudy against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/29

         Action brought on 20 April 2005 by Jean-Louis Giraudy against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-169/05)
   (2005/C 171/48)
   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 20 April 2005 by Jean-Louis Giraudy, residing in Paris, represented by Dominique Voillemot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 21 February 2005 inasmuch as it does not acknowledge the faults of the Press D-G and rejects his complaint;

               —

               declare that those faults have caused actual and quantifiable damage, and that there is a causal link between those faults and the damage;

               —

               declare lawful, in consequence, financial compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant and fix the compensation for the non-material damage suffered at the sum of EUR 500 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   At the material time, the applicant was Head of the Commission's Office in France. As a result of allegations made against him concerning supposed irregularities adversely affecting the European Union's budget, the European Anti-Fraud Office (the OLAF) carried out an operation at the headquarters of the Commission's Office on 18 November 2002. The next day the applicant was transferred to Brussels and forbidden all contact within the Commission or without.
   The applicant also claims that a press release issued by the Commission on 21 November 2002 and widely circulated gave rise to considerable publicity unfavourable to him in the media. According to the applicant, the OLAF's report of 6 May 2003 concluded that the allegations against him were groundless.
   By this action the applicant seeks to obtain compensation for the damage caused him by those acts. In support of his action he claims that he was transferred unlawfully, without justification and in breach of the presumption of innocence. He also claims that the Commission's spokesman did not observe the confidential nature of the inquiry and made public statements liable to damage his reputation. Finally, he claims that certain allegations concerning him were made by the Director General of the Press Directorate-General, of the flimsiness of which the latter must have been aware.


title: Case T-94/02: Action brought on 27 March 2002 by Hugo Boss AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 27 March 2002 by Hugo Boss AG
                                                                         against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
                                                                                (Case T-94/02)
The applicant manages, as general partner, the business of the
company Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH which was founded
in 1997 and built a sawmill in Wismar in 1998. By the                                            (2002/C 156/57)
contested decision, the Commission declared the State aid
which the Federal Republic of Germany granted to the                                       (Language of the case: English)
applicant in relation to the construction and expansion of the
sawmill to be incompatible with the common market.
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 March 2002 by Hugo Boss AG,
The applicant claims, first, that the guarantee in excess of             represented by Mr Emmanuel Baud of Latham & Watkins,
EUR 15,21 million with an aid component of 0,5 % must be                 Paris (France). A further party to the proceedings before the
regarded as ‘de minimis’ aid, thus precluding a Commission               Board of Appeal was Delta Protipos Biomichania Galaktos S.A.
decision ordering the recovery of that aid. The Commission
therefore wrongly applied Article 87 EC by failing to comply             The applicant claims that the Court should:
with Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 (1) and/or the
notice on the de minimis rule for State aid.                             —     annul the contested Decision rendered by the Fourth
                                                                               Board of Appeal in its ruling no. R0053/2001-4 on
                                                                               12 December 2001;
                                                                         —     order that the BOSS Community Trade Mark application
The applicant further submits that the Commission misapplied                   nr 331462 for ice cream be rejected;
Articles 87 and 88 EC and the German Investment Allowance
Law. The Investment Allowance Law of 1999 provides for the               —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
grant of a tax investment allowance for the acquisition and
manufacture of capital equipment and buildings by businesses
located in the former East Germany and was approved in its
entirety by the Commission. The requirements of the Law are              Pleas in law and main arguments
fulfilled, so that the investment allowance in favour of the
applicant was lawful. The Commission’s decision that the grant           Applicant for the Com-       Delta Protipos         Biomichania
of an investment allowance to the applicant was permissible              munity trade mark:           Galaktos S.A.
only as to 10 % is therefore unlawful.
                                                                         The Community trade          The word mark ‘BOSS’ for certain
                                                                         mark concerned:              goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32
                                                                                and 33
Moreover, the applicant claims that the decision constitutes an          Proprietor of the right to   Hugo Boss AG
infringement of the prohibition venire contra factum proprium            the trade mark or sign
and the Community principle of the protection of legitimate              asserted by way of oppo-
expectations. Furthermore, the Commission unlawfully failed              sition in the opposition
to consider the actual aid intensity amount and infringed                proceedings:
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and Article 253 EC (2).
Finally, the Commission infringed Articles 87, 88 and 253 EC             Trade mark or sign           The German registration of the
by way of its formulaic and inaccurate consideration of the              asserted by way of oppo-     word mark ‘BOSS’ for certain
company Klausner Nordic Timber as a large-scale company.                 sition in the opposition     goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18,
                                                                         proceedings:                 24 and 25 and the following
                                                                                international registration of this
                                                                                mark as well as the international
                                                                                registration of the word mark
                                                                                ‘BOSS’ for certain goods in class-
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
    the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de
                                                                                es 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 and the
    minimis aid (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 30).                                                                international registration for these
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying                                       same goods of the word mark
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC                                   ‘BOSS HUGO BOSS’.
    Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
                                                                         sition Division:
                                                                         Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal intro-
                                                                         Appeal:                      duced by Hugo Boss AG.
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
Grounds of claim:              Violation of Article 8(5) of               According to the applicant, the Commission made manifest
                               Council Regulation 40/94 (1).              errors of assessment and errors in law in concluding that the
                               According to the applicant, the            commitments are sufficient to take away the said competitive
                               trade mark is detrimental to the           concerns and has therefore violated Articles 2 (2) and 8 (2) of
                               repute of the earlier trade mark           the Merger Regulation (2).
                               and constitutes an unfair advan-
                               tage for Delta.
                                                                          In the contested Decision in the present case, the Commission
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           imposed on Shell and DEA the obligation to make available,
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)
                                                                          up to a certain quantity, access to Shell’s terminal facilities to
                                                                          producers of ethylene. This remedy is based, according to the
                                                                          applicant, on an error of assessment. The applicant submits
                                                                          that this obligation is unclear in its definition of the entities
                                                                          that should be granted access. As a consequence, this remedy
                                                                          could be made ineffective if access is granted to entities who
                                                                          should not, according to the applicant, benefit from this access.
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV against the                    The remedy is also limited in time, while the situation after its
         Commission of the European Communities                           expiry will remained the same as it was originally. Furthermore,
                                                                          the applicant claims that the volume of ethylene that can be
                          (Case T-99/02)                                  put on the ARG+market in this manner is insufficient to
                                                                          remedy the constraints on competition caused by the oper-
                                                                          ation.
                         (2002/C 156/58)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The Commission also made an error in law since there is no
                                                                          protection for third parties on the market until the remedies
                                                                          in the Shell/DEA case and in the BP/E.ON case become
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 effective. The remedies imposed in each case are only effective
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                if the remedies in the other case are operative as well. The
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV,                         remedies to be given by Shell/DEA will not, however, be
represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC and Mr                operative until 1 January 2003 or later. Therefore, the
Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).                 jointly dominant position will, according to the applicant, be
                                                                          unconstrained until all the remedies are operative. Meanwhile,
                                                                          the contested Decision does not provide for any interim
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               protection for third parties.
—     annul, under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the Com-
      mission Decision in case no. COMP/M.2389-Shell/DEA
      in its entirety and/or insofar as it concerns the market for        The applicant claims in addition that the errors of assessment
      supply of merchant ethylene;                                        and the error in law of the Commission concerning the remedy
                                                                          in the BP/E.ON case is another ground for annulment of the
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Decision contested in the present case since both cases are so
                                                                          closely related to each other. In the BP/E.ON case, the
                                                                          Commission considered that the commitment to reduce the
                                                                          combined shareholding of BP and Veba Oel, by two out of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           three shares, would achieve open access at reasonable prices
                                                                          for use of the ARG pipe network.
The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
ethylene on the ARG+ pipeline network in Belgium, the
Netherlands and western Germany.
                                                                          The applicant argues that the remedy in the BP/E.ON case
                                                                          gives no control over how the future shareholders will conduct
The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission                     themselves with regard to the company’s future strategy, and
declaring an operation where Deutsche Shell GmbH would                    that there is, therefore, no guarantee that this remedy would
acquire sole control of the undertaking DEA Mineraloel AG                 reconstitute the ARG pipe network as a common carrier.
under certain conditions compatible with the common market                Furthermore, the applicant states that the transfer of a share
and the EEA Agreement. These conditions were necessary                    needs the unanimous approval of all the other shareholders,
since the operation gave rise to competition concerns on the              which constitutes an element of uncertainty in the remedy.
ARG+ merchant ethylene market. In particular, there was a                 The applicant submits also that the Commission has made an
risk of creating a joint dominant position of Shell/DEA and               error in law since the remedy gives no provisional solution to
BP/Veba Oel (case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON (1). These cases                the problems of lack of access and high transportation charges
were treated similarly by the Commission.                                 on the pipe network until the divestment of the shares.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-295/03 P: Alessandrini Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Bananas — Third-country imports — Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 — Import licences for bananas from ACP States — Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 30 June 2005
   in Case C-295/03 P: Alessandrini Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Bananas - Third-country imports - Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 - Import licences for bananas from ACP States - Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 - Non-contractual liability of the Community)
   (2005/C 205/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-295/03 P, Alessandrini Srl, established in Treviso (Italy), Anello Gino di Anello Luigi & C. Snc, established in Brescia (Italy), Arpigi SpA, established in Padua (Italy), Bestfruit Srl, established in Milan (Italy), Co-Frutta SpA, established in Padua, Co-Frutta Soc. coop. arl, established in Padua, Dal Bello Sife Srl, established in Padua, Frigofrutta Srl, established in Palermo (Italy), Garletti Snc, established in Bergamo (Italy), London Fruit Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom) (Lawyers: W. Viscardini Donà and G. Donà), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer) — appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 2 July 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01 Alessandrini and Others v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the applications brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01;

               3.

               Orders Alessandrini Srl, Anello Gino di Anello Luigi & C. Snc, Arpigi SpA, Bestfruit Srl, Co-Frutta SpA, Co-Frutta Soc. coop. arl, Dal Bello Sife Srl, Frigofrutta Srl, Garletti Snc and London Fruit Ltd to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and in connection with the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003


title: Case T-289/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Keolis CIF and Others v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/50

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Keolis CIF and Others v Commission
   (Case T-289/17)
   (2017/C 239/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Keolis CIF (Le Mesnil-Amelot, France), Keolis Val d’Oise (Bernes-sur-Oise, France), Keolis Seine Sénart (Draveil, France), Keolis Seine Val de Marne (Athis-Mons, France), Keolis Seine Esonne (Ormoy, France), Keolis Vélizy (Versailles, France), Keolis Yvelines (Versailles) and Keolis Versailles (Versailles) (represented by: D. Epaud and R. Sermier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, annul in part the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 concerning the aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île de France region insofar as it declares, in Article 1 thereof, that the aid scheme has been ‘unlawfully’ implemented, although the aid scheme at issue was already in existence;

               —

               In the alternative, annul in part the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 concerning the aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île de France region insofar as it declares, in Article 1 thereof, that the aid scheme has been ‘unlawfully’ implemented, with respect to the period before 25 November 1998;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First and primary plea in law, alleging that the regional aid scheme was not unlawfully implemented, since it was not subject to any obligation of prior notification. The regional aid scheme is, in fact, an existing aid scheme, within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU and the provisions of Article 1(b) and Chapter VI of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9; ‘Regulation No 2015/1589’). Under the rules applicable to existing aid schemes, their implementation is not unlawful since the Commission may merely lay down, if necessary, appropriate measures to enable them to develop or be closed in the future.

               2.

               Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that, even if the aid scheme at issue were not to constitute an existing aid scheme, the Commission was not entitled to carry its investigation back beyond the limitation period of 10 years preceding 25 November 2008, the date on which the Commission sent a request for information to the French authorities. Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589 provides that the limitation period is to be interrupted only by action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission. Thus, the applicants are of the opinion that the Commission was entitled to carry its examination back only until 25 November 1998.


title: Case T-221/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/11
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-221/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                            (2003/C 239/16)                                          into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Mark Amay
                                                                                and in respect of a proposed new vessel MFV Mark Amay;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely,                            ings.
Claregalway, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               03 (1).
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for                    (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Girl Stephanie;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-223/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/18)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty,
                                                                              Burtonport, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers                             lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
                                 munities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-222/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/17)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                      (Language of the case: English)                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           replace the MFV Aine;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers
Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and                —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                     ings.


title: Case T-500/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-500/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 096/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan, SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Ryanair Ltd;

               4.

               Orders Ryanair to pay half of its own costs;

               5.

               Orders Aer Lingus Ltd and Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-477/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas
   (Case C-477/16)
   (2016/C 383/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Ruslanas Kovalkovas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the expressions ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) and ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, autonomous terms of EU law?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member Stateis is such a ‘judicial authority’ and whether the EAW issued by it is consequently such a ‘judicial decision’?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania covered by the term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and is the EAW issued by that authority consequently a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the designation of an authority such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania as the issuing judicial authority in conformity with EU law?

      (1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-444/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC and Decision 96/350/EC — Directive 94/62/EC — Concept of waste — Concept of recycling — Processing of metal packaging waste)

text:
C 184/4                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    That interpretation would be no different if the concepts of
                                                                                ‘recycling’ and ‘waste’ referred to by Council Directive 75/442/
                                                                                EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste were taken into account.
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2001.
                           of 19 June 2003
in Case C-444/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environ-                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment,
                  Transport and the Regions (1)                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
(Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
and Decision 96/350/EC — Directive 94/62/EC — Concept
of waste — Concept of recycling — Processing of metal                        in Case C-97/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                           packaging waste)                                               nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Telecom-
                            (2003/C 184/06)                                  munications — Rights of way — Failure to transpose Direc-
                                                                                tive 90/388/EEC effectively)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                                      (2003/C 184/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
In Case C-444/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling              In Case C-97/01, Commission of the European Communities
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                     (Agents: S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier) v Grand Duchy of
Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd and                    Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz): Applications for a declaration
Environment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment,                  that, by failing to ensure, in practice, the effective transposition
Transport and the Regions, interveners: Corus (UK) Ltd and                   into Luxembourg law of Article 4d of Commission Directive
Allied Steel and Wire Ltd (ASW), on the interpretation of                    90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ                    for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), as
1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/                  amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March
EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission                    1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32),                    has failed to fulfil its obligations, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
and of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ                        C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rappor-
1994 L 365, p. 10), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  teur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans                     trar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                 1.    Declares that, by failing to ensure the effective transposition of
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 June                         Article 4d of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                       1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications
                                                                                services, as amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of
                                                                                13 March 1996, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
1.    ‘Recycling’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of European                   to fulfil its obligations;
      Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December
      1994 on packaging and packaging waste is to be interpreted as          2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      not including the reprocessing of metal packaging waste when it
      is transformed into a secondary raw material such as material
      meeting the specifications of Grade 3B, but as covering the            (1) OJ C 108, 7.4.2001.
      reprocessing of such waste when it is used to produce ingots,
      sheets or coils of steel.


title: Case C-666/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2011 — M and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2011 — M and Others v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-666/11)
   2012/C 73/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: M, N, O, P, Q

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               In court proceedings concerning a declaration of lack of responsibility and an order that he be removed to the Member State responsible in the view of the Member State in which an application for asylum was lodged (requesting Member State), may an asylum seeker rely on the fact that the transfer has not taken place within the time-limit of six months under Article 19(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (1) and therefore that the responsibility lies with the requesting Member State?

               2.

               Does a suicide attempt, even one which is faked, as a result of which transfer to the Member State responsible is not possible, constitute absconding within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 19(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003?

               3.

               In court proceedings concerning a declaration of lack of responsibility and an order that he be removed, may an asylum seeker rely on a transfer of responsibility under the second sentence of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003? (2)

               4.

               If the requesting Member State informs the Member State responsible that the transfer which has already been organised has been postponed, but not that the transfer cannot be carried out within the time-limit of six months, does this prevent the transfer of responsibility under the second sentence of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003?

               5.

               Does the asylum seeker have a right, enforceable by him in the courts, to require a Member State to examine the assumption of responsibility under the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 and to inform him about the grounds for its decision?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3).


title: Case T-158/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/35

         Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-158/11) (1)

   ((Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU - Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Dismissal - Discontinuance - Removal from the register))
   2014/C 135/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián, SA (Incio, Spain); Magnesitas Navarras, SA (Zubiri, Spain); and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: initially M. Gómez-Leal, I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, and subsequently M. Gómez-Leal and M. Visaggio, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Alcover San Pedro and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, and subsequently by S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17), insofar as it imposes an obligation on the Member States to respect the conclusions on best available techniques contained in section 3.5 of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (OJ 2010 C 166, p. 5), as regards the conditions of the permits which the competent authorities grant to manufacturing facilities for magnesium subject to permits under that directive.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

               2.

               Case T-158/11 is removed from the Register of the General Court.

               3.

               Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

               4.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 24 June 2004 in Case C-278/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich): Herbert Handlbauer GmbH (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef and veal — Export refunds — Repayment of amounts wrongly paid — Proceedings relating to irregularities — Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Direct effect — Limitation period — Interruption of the limitation)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   24 June 2004
   in Case C-278/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich): Herbert Handlbauer GmbH (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Export refunds - Repayment of amounts wrongly paid - Proceedings relating to irregularities - Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Direct effect - Limitation period - Interruption of the limitation)
   (2004/C 201/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-278/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by Herbert Handlbauer GmbH — on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests is directly applicable in the Member States, including in the field of export refunds on agricultural products, in the absence of sectoral Community rules providing for a shorter limitation period which may not be less than three years or of national rules providing for a longer limitation period.

               2.

               The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that notification of a customs inspection made to the undertaking involved does not constitute an act relating to investigation or legal proceedings which interrupts the limitation period of four years under Article 3(1) of the said regulation unless the transactions to which the suspicion of the existence of irregularities are sufficiently precisely defined by the act.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-86/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Codorníu v EUIPO — Bodegas Altun (ANA DE ALTUN)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/40

         Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Codorníu v EUIPO — Bodegas Altun (ANA DE ALTUN)
   (Case T-86/16)
   (2016/C 136/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Codorníu SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Altun, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ANA DE ALTUN’ — Application for registration No 11 860 913

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 199/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings, should that party intervene, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-408/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Adidas-Salomon AG, formerly Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd (Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(2) — Trade marks with a reputation — Protection against use of a sign in relation to identical or similar goods or services — Degree of similarity between the mark and the sign — Effect on the public — Sign viewed as an embellishment)

text:
13.12.2003               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 304/5
—     Article 41(1) precludes the introduction into the national               court between Adidas-Salomon AG, formerly Adidas AG,
      legislation of a Member State of a requirement of a work permit          Adidas Benelux BV and Fitnessworld Trading Ltd, on the
      in order for an undertaking established in Turkey to provide             interpretation of Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/
      services in the territory of that State, if such a permit was not        104/EEC of 21 December 1988 approximating the laws of the
      already required at the time of the entry into force of the              Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1),
      Additional Protocol;                                                     the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                               President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Ma-
                                                                               cken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
—     it is for the national court to determine whether the national           Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
      legislation applied to Turkish nationals such as the applicants          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in
      in the main proceedings is less favourable than that applicable          which it has ruled:
      at the time of the entry into force of the Additional Protocol.
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001, OJ C 348 of 08.12.2001.
                                                                               1.   A Member State, where it exercises the option provided
                                                                                by Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
                                                                                21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
                                                                                States relating to trade marks, is bound to grant the specific
                                                                                protection in question in cases of use by a third party of a later
                                                                                mark or sign which is identical with or similar to the registered
                                                                                mark with a reputation, both in relation to goods or services
                                                                                which are not similar and in relation to goods or services which
                                                                                are identical with or similar to those covered by that mark.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                     2.   The protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 is
                                                                                not conditional on a finding of a degree of similarity between
                                                                                the mark with a reputation and the sign such that there exists
                                                                                a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the
                        of 23 October 2003
                                                                                relevant section of the public. It is sufficient for the degree of
                                                                                similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to
                                                                                have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes
in Case C-408/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           a link between the sign and the mark.
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Adidas-Salomon AG,
formerly Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld
                            Trading Ltd (1)
                                                                               3.   The fact that a sign is viewed as an embellishment by the
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(2) — Trade marks with                             relevant section of the public is not, in itself, an obstacle to the
a reputation — Protection against use of a sign in relation                         protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 where
to identical or similar goods or services — Degree of                               the degree of similarity is none the less such that the relevant
similarity between the mark and the sign — Effect on the                            section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the
           public — Sign viewed as an embellishment)                                mark. By contrast, where, according to a finding of fact by the
                                                                                national court, the relevant section of the public views the sign
                                                                                purely as an embellishment, it necessarily does not establish any
                                                                                link with a registered mark, with the result that one of the
                           (2003/C 304/07)                                          conditions of the protection conferred by Article 5(2) of
                                                                                Directive 89/104 is then not satisfied.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                             (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
In Case C-408/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case T-242/05: Action brought on 27 June 2005 by AEPI A.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/35

         Action brought on 27 June 2005 by AEPI A.E. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-242/05)
   (2005/C 205/63)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 2005 by Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias, a company established in Maroussi, Attica, represented by T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measures;

               —

               entertain and hear the original complaint as to its substance;

               —

               uphold the applicant's original complaint in its entirety;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the fees of the applicant's lawyer.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, which is a company for the collective management of musical intellectual-property rights in Greece, lodged a complaint with the European Commission referring to Article 226 EC, seeking a finding that the Greek Minister for Culture had infringed the competition rules (Article 81 EC) by the creation, as pleaded, of monopolistic situations on the grant of licences to bodies engaging in the collective management of intellectual-property rights and related rights.
   By letter dated 7 December 2004 under reference COMP/C2/PK/pm/D/906((2004), the Commission informed the applicant that it proposed to take no further action on the matter, while inviting the applicant to inform it of any new matters which could prove that there was an infringement. By a subsequent letter dated 20 April 2005 under reference Comp/C2/PK/LVP/D/219/2005, the Commission informed the applicant that it was definitively rejecting its complaint.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of those decisions. It contends first of all that there is a complete lack of reasons for the decision of 20 April 2005 which, in its submission, took no account whatsoever of the new matters relied upon by it in answer to the letter of 7 December 2004. It further submits that the Greek Minister of Culture discriminated against it since it granted all the other collective-management bodies a licence in respect of all the fields requested, while in the case of the applicant it granted a licence only for intellectual property-rights, and not for related rights too as the applicant had requested. The applicant submits that that was done intentionally in order to create monopolistic situations. The applicant also pleads breach of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality since, in its view, holders of related rights who are not Greek cannot choose in Greece whichever company they want and entrust it with management of their related rights. Finally, the applicant considers that the practice of which it complained concerns a large part of the intellectual-property market, and not a limited part — the view taken in the contested measures.