title: Case T-539/13: Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/19

         Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission
   (Case T-539/13)
   2014/C 15/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: S. Famiani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2013 requesting overall payment in the amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of the following projects: Project No 224482, known as MARE (EUR 80 352,07), Project No 216820, known as SENIOR (EUR 53 138,40) and Project No 225010, known as ECRN (EUR 78 231,42); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss and non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 3 000 000 or an amount to be determined in the course of the proceedings, as well as the costs of the proceedings, together with interest and monetary indexation of the sum payable.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings, which participated in three projects approved under the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), contests the Commission’s decision seeking partial restitution of the aid granted.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward eight pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea: the Financial Guide 2010 is inapplicable and lacks retroactive effect in relation to the MARE and SENIOR projects.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the Financial Guide 2010 did not apply retroactively and that, in consequence, the Financial Guide 2007 should have applied, since it was in force at the time when the contracts were signed.

               2.

               Second plea: the Commission and the company responsible for the audit failed to respect the applicant’s right to be heard.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission ignored the rules in Annex II to the contract, both in respect of the right to a fair hearing and in relation to respecting the terms for the submission of the reports.

               3.

               Third plea: the Commission acted in breach of the principle of cooperation and of mutual trust vis-à-vis the applicant, particularly as regards suspected maladministration and injurious behaviour.

               4.

               Fourth plea: uncertainty of the rules applicable to SMEs for the purposes of the recognition of the project costs.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission does not draw attention to the risks linked to the failure mechanisms of the accounting system which may result in all of a project’s costs being rejected.

               5.

               Fifth plea: the rules of the International Audit Federation and the European legislation in force governing the audit of SMEs were disapplied.

               6.

               Sixth plea: concerning the permissibility of the project costs and the assessment gaps in the audit.

               7.

               Seventh plea: the company responsible for the audit based its conclusion that the costs should be rejected mainly on the exclusive use of timesheets.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the auditors rejected certain travel expenses because they were not included in the initial planning document (Dow); even though the work plan of the projects is normally set out in detail on an annual basis.

               8.

               Eighth plea: (i) the applicant has a legitimate right to be paid for activities correctly carried out and (ii) unjust enrichment of the Commission.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the results of the MARE, SENIOR and ECNR projects were delivered to the Commission within the time allowed, they results were considered excellent, and were fully accepted by the Commission and approved and signed by the European Commissioner responsible for the sector; the ENCR project was extended for an additional six months in recognition of the work carried out. Rejecting the overall costs of the projects would therefore be at variance with the principle of the right to be remunerated for work carried out, resulting in the Commission being unjustly enriched.


title: Case C-105/05: Action brought on 3 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/22

         Action brought on 3 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-105/05)
   (2005/C 93/41)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Republic of Finland, in calculating social security contributions, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Finland takes account in accordance with national legislation, the Law on Sickness Insurance (364/1963), when determining the social security contributions of a pensioner living in Finland, in addition to the pension income paid by Finland also that paid by other Member States. The Commission submits that the taking into account of pension income paid by another Member State when determining the basis of payment of social security contributions is contrary to Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-389/99 Rundgren).

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.


title: Case T-85/06: Action brought on  8 March 2006  — General Química and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/41

         Action brought on 8 March 2006 — General Química and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-85/06)
   (2006/C 131/78)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: General Química S.A. (Lantarón, Álava, Spain), Repsol Química S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A. (Madrid) (represented by: J.M. Jiménez Laiglesia and J. Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1(g), 1(h) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as it declares Repson Química and Repsol YPF to be jointly and severally liable for an infringement of Article 81(1) EC;
               alternatively, annul the declaration of joint and several liability in respect of Repsol YPF;

               —

               annul Article 2(d) of the decision in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine at EUR 3.38 million;
               alternatively, reduce the amount of the fine in an appropriate manner;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is brought against Commission Decision C(2005) 5592 final of 21 December 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.443 — Chemicals for the rubber industry. In the contested decision the Commission declared that the applicant, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, between 1999-2000, in a cartel and concerted practices consisting in price-fixing and the exchange of confidential information in the rubber chemicals sector in the EEA. In respect of those infringements the Commission imposed a fine jointly and severally on the applicants.
   In support of their claims the applicants rely on the following grounds:

               —

               incorrect assessment by the Commission, in declaring Repsol YPF and Repsol Química jointly liable with General Química and, alternatively, incorrect assessment and failure to state reasons for the declaration of joint and several liability in respect of Repsol YPF;

               —

               incorrect assessment, failure to state reasons and infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in the calculation of the fine;

               —

               incorrect assessment and defective reasoning in the application of the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (1).

      (1)  OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3.


title: Case C-296/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/19

         Action brought on 14 June 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-296/11)
   2011/C 252/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by applying the special scheme for travel agencies to services supplied to persons other than travellers (in particular to other travel agencies), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging the wrongful application of the special scheme for travel agencies to services supplied to persons other than travellers. In that regard, it points out that the scheme applies only where the travel service is sold to a traveller. However, it is not applicable to services supplied by travel agencies to other travel agencies or to tour operators. Having regard to the wording of the provisions of the Code général des impôts (General Tax Code) which refer to a ‘client’ rather than a ‘traveller’, the defendant uses an approach based on the ‘client’ and thus applies the special scheme for travel agencies broadly.
   The Commission also rejects the argument advanced by the French authorities that the French legislation enables the objectives pursued by the special scheme, namely the simplification of travel agencies’ administrative formalities and the attribution of VAT revenue to the Member State in which the end consumption of each individual service took place, to be better achieved.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


17.7.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 204/35
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Case C-320/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (1999/C 204/74)
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
Article 14(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.               By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-320/97: Commission of the
(1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 75.                                             European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) See this OJ, p. 28.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-330/98 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-5/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/71)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/75)
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-330/98 (reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Wellcome Foun-             from the register of Case C-5/99 (reference for a preliminary
dation Ltd v Nycomed Austria GmbH.                                    ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg): Business registry
                                                                      case relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a
                                                                      branch of Lohmann & Co. AG.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 86 of 27.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-245/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/72)                                                      (1999/C 204/76)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-186/97: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-245/98: Commission of the European
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-398/96 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case     C-192/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/77)
                         (1999/C 204/73)
                                                                      By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Second                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities           the register of Case C-398/96 (reference for a preliminary
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-192/97:           ruling from Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic             Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso
of Germany.                                                           and Others v Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e
                                                                      Forestali (Ministero per le Politche Agricole).
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case C-408/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Criminal proceedings against José Antonio da Silva Carvalho

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/15

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 11 December 2003
   in Case C-408/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Criminal proceedings against José Antonio da Silva Carvalho (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Residence condition - Obtaining of a driving licence in a Member State other than the one in which the holder of that licence resides)
   (2004/C 94/31)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-408/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against José Antonio da Silva Carvalho on the interpretation of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave an order on 11 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The combined provisions of Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing recognition to a driving licence issued by another Member State on the ground that, according to the information available to the first Member State, the holder of the licence in question had, at the date of its issue, established his normal residence in the territory of that Member State and not in the territory of the issuing Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2003.


title: Case C-46/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/20

         Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-46/07)
   (2007/C 82/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force a provision by which public employees are entitled to receive the old-age pension at different ages depending on whether they are male or female, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission claims that the pension scheme managed by INPDAP (National Provident Institution for the Employees of Public Authorities) is a discriminatory occupational scheme contrary to Article 141 EC, since it provides that the general pensionable age for men is 65 and for women 60.


title: Case T-59/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of development, maintenance and support services for the financial information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture — Selection and award criteria — Rejection of a submitted tender — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — No manifest error of assessment — Principles of diligence and good administration)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission
   (Case T-59/05) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of development, maintenance and support services for the financial information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture - Selection and award criteria - Rejection of a submitted tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - No manifest error of assessment - Principles of diligence and good administration)
   (2008/C 272/30)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented: initially by K. Banks and E. Manhaeve, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2004 rejecting the bid filed by the applicant in the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and of the decision of the Commission to award the contract to another bidder.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being unfounded.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay one fifth of the costs incurred by Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

               3.

               Evropaïki Dinamiki shall bear four fifths of its costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case T-119/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Gbagbo v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/17

         Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Gbagbo v Council
   (Case T-119/11)
   2011/C 130/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Simone Gbagbo (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J. –C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Case T-317/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — L v Parliament (Appeals — Staff cases — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision to dismiss — Obligation to state reasons — Loss of trust)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — L v Parliament
   (Case T-317/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision to dismiss - Obligation to state reasons - Loss of trust)
   2013/C 304/18
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Appellant: L (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: initially by A. Sèbe and V. Sviderskis and subsequently by A. Sèbe, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented: initially by S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and L. Mašalaitė-Chouteau, subsequently by S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and S. Milius, and finally by S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential], (2) seeking to have that judgment set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential] in so far as it did not rule on the plea alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, rejected the plea alleging factual inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment and held that the appellant had not claimed that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the costs;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr L before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case [confidential] as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating both to the first instance proceedings and the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

      (2)  Confidential data omitted.


title: Case C-227/10: Action brought on 7 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/16

         Action brought on 7 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-227/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/24
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents, and A. Salumets, vandeadvokaat)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt as required the necessary provisions to comply with Article 2(a) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, (1) the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Incomplete transposition of the first indent of Article 2(a) of the directive
   The Commission's view is that, although the definition in Paragraph 31 of the Estonian Law on environmental impact assessment and environment management (Keskkonnamõju hindamise ja keskkonnajuhtimise seadus, KeHJS) is broader than that of the directive in relation to the second indent of Article 2(a) of the directive, it is none the less narrower in relation to the first indent, since it excludes plans and programmes (with possible effects on the environment) which are subject to preparation by an authority but have not been laid down by a legal act. It is therefore possible under the Estonian national law for plans and programmes which are required by legislative or administrative provisions (although this condition of the directive is not laid down in the Estonian law) not to come under an environmental impact assessment.
   Defects in the transposition of Article 6(1) of the directive
   The Commission's view is that the requirement in Paragraph 37(2)(3) of the KeHJS to make public either the draft plan/programme or only the terms of reference is not consistent with the directive. The Commission submits that in general the terms of reference of a strategic planning document are too general and do not make it possible to ascertain and evaluate all the effects on the environment and the health of humans.
   Incomplete transposition of Article 6(3) of the directive
   Article 6(3) of the directive lays down a clear obligation to designate the authorities which are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes. That provision is also referred to in Articles 3(6), 5(4) and 6(1) and (2) of the directive. Paragraphs 36(3) and 35(4) of the KeHJS both list the same authorities which must be consulted (the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of the Environment, the environment service or a local authority body), but there is no requirement in the Estonian law to consult any other authority. That means, however, that there is no general requirement to consult all the authorities which by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes. It is also not clear, on the basis of those paragraphs of the KeHJS, which authorities must be consulted in addition to the authorities listed. In the Commission's view, the Estonian law is unclear and the freedom of choice in designating authorities in accordance with Article 6(3) of the directive is too great. It is possible that there may be other authorities which are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of plans or programmes. While the Estonian law provides for other authorities to be consulted where appropriate, it is possible that they may not be consulted even if they are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of plans and programmes, because consultation is not obligatory in such a case.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.


title: Case T-382/16: Action brought on 21 July 2016 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/48

         Action brought on 21 July 2016 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)
   (Case T-382/16)
   (2016/C 335/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asna, Inc. (San Antonio, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wings Software BVBA (Heist-Op-den-Berg, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ASNA WINGS’ — Application for registration No 11 388 352

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2016 in Case R 436/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

               —

               declare the proposed evidence admissible;

               —

               annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Error as to the proof of use by the other party;

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court of 19 June 2015 in Case E-19/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway (Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

text:
               7.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 3/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 19 June 2015
   in Case E-19/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway
   (Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)
   (2016/C 3/05)
   In Case E-19/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to take, within the time prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 ESA v Norway, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 19 June 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion sent to the Kingdom of Norway by the EFTA Surveillance Authority pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-101/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 February 2016 — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 February 2016 — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud
   (Case C-101/16)
   (2016/C 175/09)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Paper Consult SRL

      Respondents: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2006/112/EC (1) preclude national rules under which a taxable person is denied the right to deduct VAT on the grounds that the person upstream, which issued the invoice in which the expenditure and VAT are indicated, has been declared inactive by the tax authorities?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Directive 2006/112/EC preclude national rules under which it is sufficient to display the list of registered inactive taxpayers at the headquarters of the Agenției Națională de Administrare Fiscală (National Agency for Fiscal Administration) and to publish that list on the website of that agency, in the section Public information — Information relating to economic operators, in order that the right to deduct VAT in the circumstances described in the first question may be refused?

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


title: Case T-254/16: Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/42

         Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission
   (Case T-254/16)
   (2016/C 251/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. van den Broucke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   primarily,

               —

               find that the European Commission made multiple manifest errors of assessment and infringed its duty to state reasons in relation to the characterisation of the existence of an advantage conferred by the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg), both in the analysis of the comparability of the Sumitomo and Rabobank loans and in the application of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication;

         in the alternative,

               —

               find that the European Commission made a manifest error of assessment concerning the compatibility of the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) by holding that the 2009 Communication setting a temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis was not applicable;

         in any event and consequently,

               —

               annul Article 1(e) of the European Commission’s Decision C(2016) 94 of 20 January 2016 on the State aid SA.33926 2013/C implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco;

               —

               annul Articles 2 to 4 of that decision inasmuch as they concern the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg);

               —

               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 that the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) did not confer any advantage and that the Commission made an error of assessment by holding that the loan at issue amounted to State aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the application of the Commission’s Communication — Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (OJ 2009 C 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-161/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2015 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2015 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council
   (Case T-161/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 371/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd (Labuan, Malaysia) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for partial annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) and, second, for annulment of the Council’s decision to maintain the restrictive measures concerning the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd:

                           —

                           Point I of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Point I of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders First Islamic Investment Bank to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the Council of the European Union, and the Council to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of First Islamic Investment Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-20/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Luxembourg) — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Condition of residence in the Member State granting the assistance — Refusal to grant the aid to students, who are European Union citizens not residing in the Member State concerned, whose father or mother, a frontier worker, works in that Member State — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree — Whether appropriate — Proportionality)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/24

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Luxembourg) — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
   (Case C-20/12) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies - Condition of residence in the Member State granting the assistance - Refusal to grant the aid to students, who are European Union citizens not residing in the Member State concerned, whose father or mother, a frontier worker, works in that Member State - Indirect discrimination - Justification - Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree - Whether appropriate - Proportionality)
   2013/C 225/39
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin, Joëlle Hodin

      Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Intervening party: Didier Taminiaux

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Whether national legislation making the grant of financial aid for higher education dependent on a condition of residence which applies both to home students and to students from another Member State is permissible — Social advantage within the meaning of the abovementioned regulation — Difference in treatment between the children of national workers and the children of migrant workers — Reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as precluding, in principle, legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of financial aid for higher education studies conditional upon residence by the student in that Member State and gives rise to a difference in treatment, amounting to indirect discrimination, between persons who reside in the Member State concerned and those who, not being residents of that Member State, are the children of frontier workers carrying out an activity in that Member State.
   While the objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree in order to promote the development of the economy of that same Member State is a legitimate objective which can justify such a difference in treatment and while a condition of residence, such as that provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of that objective, such a condition nevertheless goes beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective pursued, to the extent that it precludes the taking into account of other elements potentially representative of the actual degree of attachment of the applicant for the financial aid with the society or with the labour market of the Member State concerned, such as the fact that one of the parents, who continues to support the student, is a frontier worker who has stable employment in that Member State and has already worked there for a significant period of time.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-327/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM (representation of a red and white Vichy motif) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a red and white Vichy motif — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM (representation of a red and white Vichy motif)
   (Case T-327/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing a red and white Vichy motif - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts (Puteaux, France) (represented by: T. Mollet-Viéville and T. Cuche, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: V. Melgar, and subsequently by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Grupo Lactalis Iberia SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2014 (Case R 1295/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Grupo Lactalis Iberia SA and Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-312/08: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/7

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-312/08) (1)

   2009/C 167/15

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T-425/17: Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Capo d’Anzio v Commission

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/57

         Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Capo d’Anzio v Commission
   (Case T-425/17)
   (2017/C 277/82)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Capo d’Anzio SpA (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: S. Carloni, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Decision C(2017) 2953 final of 28 April 2017 on the recovery of EUR 193 120 (plus interest for late payment) initially granted to the applicant by way of pre-financing in the context of the grant agreement LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369 — LCA4PORTS.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant submits that:

               1.

               On 14 October 2011 the company Capo d’Anzio signed the grant agreement LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369, by which the European Commission awarded that company a grant (for an amount equal to 45,94 % of the total, up to a maximum amount of EUR 485 300) in the context of a project studying the environmental sustainability of the planned development of the Port of Anzio pursuant to the construction, renovation and extension project approved by the competent public authorities.

               2.

               While the activities envisaged by the project were being carried out, and the contractual and statutory rules had initially been complied with in full, the Commission identified a failure to comply with certain formal obligations, leading to that institution suspending the project and later requiring, by way of the contested decision, repayment of the amounts of money granted.

               3.

               The infringement invoked by the applicant is infringement of the rules set out in Article 11 et seq. of the common provisions regulating the procedures to be implemented in the event of suspension of the project and subsequent termination of the grant contract and taking of action to recover the pre-financing.

               4.

               In this case, the Commission acknowledges that it received communications from Capo d’Anzio bearing witness to the temporary nature of its economic and financial difficulties and expressly stating that those difficulties had been brought about by unlawful acts and matters outwith the control of that company.

               5.

               Capo d’Anzio consistently and conscientiously reported those difficulties, which could not be attributed to it, finally requesting, by memorandum of 2 November 2015 and subsequent memorandum of 7 December 2015, that account be taken of those difficulties when decisions relating to the contract were being taken, requesting a meeting to enable it to explain its reasoning and expressly undertaking, in any event, to repay the pre-financing in the event of being permanently unable to furnish a report on the project as requested.

               6.

               Instead of taking account of the justification provided and requesting further details in order to enable the applicant to exercise its rights of defence as requested, the Commission applied the common provisions, equating Capo d’Anzio’s conduct with a culpable failure to fulfil obligations.

               7.

               Capo d’Anzio was entitled to have the requested meeting with the Commission in order to demonstrate that there had been no culpable failure on its part to fulfil its obligations and thus to exercise its right not to be adversely affected by a situation which could not be attributed to it.

               8.

               The Commission’s conduct therefore amounted to a restriction of Capo d’Anzio’s rights and an infringement of the general principles of law which make the termination of contracts conditional on the existence of a culpable failure to fulfil obligations.

               9.

               That infringement of the procedural and substantive rules resulted in the unfair contested decision by which the partially-awarded funding was revoked, notwithstanding the fact that Capo d’Anzio had, in essence, properly used the sums received from the Commission to pay the professionals responsible for implementing the project, as that decision focused primarily on the purely formal fact that Capo d’Anzio had failed timeously to provide a report on the activities carried out.


title: Case C-100/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/20

         Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-100/06)
   (2006/C 86/39)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, (1) and, in any event, by not informing 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 time for complying with Directive 2003/66/EC expired on 30 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 170, p. 10.


title: Case T-324/00: Action brought on 16 October 2000 by CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/39
—     Errors in the assessment of the legal consequences to be          The present action is for compensation for the damage which
      derived from the wrongful use of the aid granted                  the applicant has suffered, or has yet to suffer in the future, as
                                                                        a result of those penal tariffs.
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC in conjunction with
      Article 88(2) EC                                                  In the applicant’s submission, by issuing Regulation (EC)
                                                                        No 1637/98 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 (2) otherwise
                                                                        than in conformity with the WTO and by not adapting the
                                                                        Community organisation of the market in bananas, the
                                                                        defendants have infringed the law of the World Trade Organis-
                                                                        ation. Those infringements must be taken into account in
                                                                        Community law. That follows, first, from the fact that the
                                                                        reformed organisation of the market in bananas is intended to
                                                                        transpose WTO law, and, secondly, from the very nature of
Action brought on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck                     WTO law and the compulsory disputes resolution mechanism
GmbH & Co. KG against the Council of the European                       itself. The applicant further maintains that the defendants’
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                    conduct infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations, the right to engage freely in economic activity,
                                                                        the right to property and the prohibition of discrimination.
                        (Case T-320/00)                                 The applicant maintains that, in relation to all those infringe-
                                                                        ments, the Commission and the Council acted negligently.
                        (2000/C 355/81)                                 Finally, in the alternative, the applicant also makes a claim for
                                                                        compensation in respect of lawful Community conduct.
                  (Language of the case: German)                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the
                                                                            market in bananas (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28).
An action against the Council of the European Union and                 (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                      laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities              Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck GmbH & Co. KG,                         the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
Obersulm (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and
W. Berg, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendants jointly and severally to pay
      the applicant damages of DEM 1 693 727,75 (EUR
      865 989,22) plus 8 % interest from 13 July 2000;                  Action brought on 16 October 2000 by CDA Datenträger
                                                                        Albrechts GmbH against the Commission of the European
—     declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for the                                 Communities
      damage which the applicant will suffer subsequently to
      the bringing of its action by virtue of the fact that the                                  (Case T-324/00)
      competent authorities of the United States of America
      levy higher duties on the applicant’s products than those
      which they would have been entitled to levy if, through                                    (2000/C 355/82)
      the organisation of the market in bananas, the Council
      had not infringed the law of the World Trade Organis-
      ation;                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 16 October 2000 by CDA Daten-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         träger Albrechts GmbH, of Albrechts, Germany, represented
                                                                        by Dr Thomas Schmidt-Kötters, Rechtsanwalt, of Hengeler
                                                                        Mueller Weitzel Wirtz, Düsseldorf, Germany.
The applicant manufactures printed and processed collapsible
cardboard cartons for proprietary products, largely intended
for the US market. As a result of the trade dispute between the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Community and the USA as to the compatibility of
the EC organisation of the market in bananas with the law of            —      annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission’s decision of
the World Trade Organisation, the USA imposed penal tariffs,                   21 June 2000 on aid by Germany to CDA Compact Disc
which also affect the products of the applicant.                               Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia;
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/40               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
      in the alternative:                                                applicant was not granted aid, did not actually receive aid, and
                                                                         was not benefited in any other way. Moreover, the applicant
      annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission’s decision of             complains that the contested decision orders recovery also
      21 June 2000 on aid by Germany to CDA Compact Disc                 from all those undertakings to which assets or infrastructure
      Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia, in so far as it declares aid            are transferred from undertakings specified by name. Since the
      incompatible with the EC Treaty and orders the recovery            applicant has in the past acquired such assets from LCA
      of aid with respect also to CDA Datenträger Albrechts              Logistik Center Albrechts GmbH, the effect of that order is a
      GmbH and all other undertakings to which assets and/or             corresponding prohibition on sale affecting the applicant. This
      infrastructure are transferred from R.E. Pilz GmbH &               is unlawful because even the decision itself finds that the
      Co. Beteiligungs KG, Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co.                    applicant acquired the assets on usual market terms.
      Beteiligungs KG or Pilz Albrechts GmbH;
                                                                         The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             particular:
                                                                         —     Breach of essential procedural requirements
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     Errors in establishing the facts
The contested decision of the Commission concerns a number               —     Defective statement of reasons
of alleged cases of aid received by various undertakings in
connection with the establishment and operation of a CD                  —     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC in conjunction with
factory in Albrechts, Thuringia. In the decision the Com-                      Article 88(2) and of the first sentence of Article 14(1) of
mission finds that part of that aid was misused. It states that                the aid procedure regulation (1)
that wrong use constitutes an abuse of aid, which is therefore           —     Lack of competence of the Commission to order recovery
incompatible with the EC Treaty. In Article 2 of the contested                 of aid in this way
decision the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to recover
the aid from more precisely specified recipients, including the          —     Breach of fundamental Community rights and other
applicant.                                                                     fundamental principles of Community law.
The applicant complains that the Commission wrongly ident-               (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
ified the applicant as a recipient of aid in the operative part of           down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
the decision. It appears even from the decision itself that the              Treaty (OJ No L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).


title: Case F-41/10: Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/55

         Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case F-41/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of several decisions terminating the applicant’s service as the Head of Unit of the Legal Service with immediate effect, reassigning him to the Directorate for Logistics and refusing his formal application for assistance and the application for damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the EESC No 88/10 A of 3 March 2010 rejecting the application brought by the applicant on 7 December 2009 and deciding to reassign him;

               —

               annul the Addendum to Decision No 88/10 of 25 March 2010;

               —

               annul Decision No 133/10 A of 24 March 2010 terminating the applicant’s service as Head of Unit of the Legal Service with immediate effect and his reassignation as Head of Unit, with his post, to another department from 6 April 2010;

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the EESC No 184/10 A of 13 April 2010 reassigning the applicant to the Directorate for Logistics, that decision taking effect on 6 April 2010;

               —

               grant the applicant damages;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case C-172/09: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 10 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/23

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 10 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-172/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/37

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.07.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti vof (C-131/13), Turbu.com BV (C-163/13), Turbu.com Mobile Phone’s BV (C-164/13) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (References for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Sixth Directive — Transitional arrangements for trade between Member States — Goods dispatched or transported within the Community — Tax evasion carried out in the Member State of arrival — Evasion taken into account in the Member State of dispatch — Refusal of the benefit of rights to deduction, exemption or refund — Absence of provisions in national law)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti vof (C-131/13), Turbu.com BV (C-163/13), Turbu.com Mobile Phone’s BV (C-164/13) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Directive - Transitional arrangements for trade between Member States - Goods dispatched or transported within the Community - Tax evasion carried out in the Member State of arrival - Evasion taken into account in the Member State of dispatch - Refusal of the benefit of rights to deduction, exemption or refund - Absence of provisions in national law))
   (2015/C 065/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-131/13), Turbu.com BV (C-163/13), Turbu.com Mobile Phone’s BV (C-164/13)

      Defendants: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti vof (C-131/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-163/13 and C-164/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Cases C-163/13 and C-164/13 are inadmissible;

               2)

               Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national authorities and courts to refuse a taxable person, in the context of an intra-Community supply, the benefit of the rights to deduction of, exemption from or refund of value added tax, even in the absence of provisions of national law providing for such refusal, if it is established, in the light of objective factors, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that, by the transaction relied on as a basis for the right concerned, it was participating in evasion of value added tax committed in the context of a chain of supplies.

               3)

               Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who knew, or should have known, that, by the transaction relied on as a basis for rights to deduction of, exemption from or refund of value added tax, that person was participating in evasion of value added tax committed in the context of a chain of supplies, may be refused the benefit of those rights, notwithstanding the fact that the evasion was carried out in a Member State other than that in which the benefit of those rights has been sought and that taxable person has, in the latter Member State, complied with the formal requirements laid down by national legislation for the purpose of benefiting from those rights.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (Sixth Directive — Article 25 — Common flat-rate scheme for farmers — Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking — Concept of ‘agricultural service’)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (1)

   (Sixth Directive - Article 25 - Common flat-rate scheme for farmers - Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking - Concept of ‘agricultural service’)
   (2005/C 182/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-43/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 27 November 2003, received at the Court on 4 February 2004, in the proceedings between Finanzamt Arnsberg and Stadt Sundern — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 25 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the common flat-rate scheme for farmers applies only to the supply of agricultural products and agricultural services, as defined in Article 25(2), and that other operations carried out by flat-rate farmers are subject to the general scheme under that directive.

               2.

               The fifth indent of Article 25(2) of Directive 77/388, read together with Annex B thereto, is to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of hunting licences by a flat-rate farmer is not an agricultural service within the meaning of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.


title: Case C-303/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-303/16)
   (2016/C 287/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Solar Electric Martinique

      Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

      Question referred

   Does the sale and installation of photovoltaic panels and solar water heaters on buildings, or with a view to supplying electricity or hot water to buildings, constitute a single transaction that may be characterised as works of construction for the purposes of Article 5(5) and Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, (1) now Article 14(3) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)

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

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


title: Case C-433/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handens Tingsrätt by order of that court of  21 November 2005  in Åklagaren v Lars Sandström

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handens Tingsrätt by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in Åklagaren v Lars Sandström
   (Case C-433/05)
   (2006/C 36/48)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Handens Tingsrätt (Sweden) of 21 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Åklagaren and Lars Sandström on the following questions:

               1.

                           (a)

                           Does Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft preclude national provisions prohibiting the use of jet-skis in places other than general waterways and waters for which the local authorities give permission in accordance with Paragraph 3(1) of the jet-ski regulations (1993:1053, as amended by 2004:607)

                           (b)

                           Is a prohibition such as that referred to in Question 1(a) permissible only when the local authorities, in assessing whether permission should be granted in accordance with Paragraph 3(1), comply with the requirement that permission must always be given for areas which fulfil the criteria in Paragraph 3(1) to (3)?

               2.

               Do Articles 28 to 30 EC preclude such national provisions prohibiting the use of personal watercraft as referred to in Question 1(a) generally or only in the circumstances referred to in Question 1(b) above?

               3.

               Irrespective of the foregoing, does the failure to notify the Commission of the European Communities of the adoption of the new jet-ski prohibition on 20 June 2004 pursuant to Directive 83/189/EEC and Directive 98/34/EC preclude national provisions such as those set out above?


title: Case C-196/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Comune di Corridonia v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Comune di Corridonia v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente
   (Case C-196/16)
   (2016/C 251/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comune di Corridonia

      Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

      Question referred

   On a constructive interpretation of Article 191 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) is it compatible with EU law to proceed with the verification of whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken (and possibly thereafter to carry out an environmental impact assessment) after the construction of the plant where the consent has been annulled by the national court due to a failure to verify whether the environmental impact assessment was needed, because such a verification had been excluded on the basis of a national law which was contrary to EU law?

      (1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).


title: Case C-589/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Interest payable on unsecured debts — Withholding tax — Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in Belgium — Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in another Member State or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment — Burden of proof — Interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities — Imposition of such interest where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a third State party to the EEA Agreement — Exemption where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-589/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Interest payable on unsecured debts - Withholding tax - Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in Belgium - Investment companies in receipt of such interest established in another Member State or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement - Difference in treatment - Burden of proof - Interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities - Imposition of such interest where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a third State party to the EEA Agreement - Exemption where the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium))
   (2015/C 429/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions according to which interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities are subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union other than the Kingdom of Belgium or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, although that interest in exempted from withholding tax where those securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

               2)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3)

               Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-247/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark FAIRWILD — Earlier Community word mark WILD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)
   (Case T-247/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark FAIRWILD - Earlier Community word mark WILD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 114/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: FairWild Foundation (Weinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Neuwald and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1014/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG and FairWild Foundation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FairWild Foundation to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-322/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation of a Member State which does not allow deduction of the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the sale of securities in the Member State of taxation)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K
   (Case C-322/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation of a Member State which does not allow deduction of the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the sale of securities in the Member State of taxation)
   2014/C 9/03
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

   K

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — National tax legislation not allowing a person with full liability to tax to deduct the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the transfer of securities in the Member State of taxation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU do not preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a taxpayer who resides in the Member State concerned and is fully liable to income tax there to deduct the losses arising on the transfer of immovable property situated in another Member State from the income from moveable assets which is taxable in the first Member State, although that would have been possible, on certain conditions, if the immovable property had been situated in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-444/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin by order of that Court of 28 August 2003 in the case of meta Fackler KG against Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 21/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.1.2004
(C) Is this tax on marble compatible with Articles 81 EC to            In particular:
     89 EC (ex Articles 85 to 90 and 92 to 94 of the EC
     Treaty), which lay down a series of rules intended to             1.   Are only ‘traditional’ homeopathic medicinal products
     create a system which will ensure that competition on                  subject to the special, simplified registration procedure
     the common market is not distorted and which will                      under Article 14 et seq. of Directive 2001/83/EC?
     remove subsisting impediments in order to attain that
     objective?                                                        2.   If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, can a
                                                                            medicinal product also be considered ‘traditional’ if it is
(D) If the answer to the previous question is ‘No’ — having                 manufactured using bibliographically identified homeo-
     regard to the fact that, in respect of the municipality in             pathic stocks without having been in actual homeopathic
     which the tax on marble (and derivatives) is levied the                use in that combination prior to the registration applied
     Treaty provides no special measures in favour of the                   for;
     Italian Republic — is it compatible with Community law                 or:
     for a legislative provision to impose a pecuniary charge
     (the ‘tax on marble’) on goods transported out of one                  Does the second indent of the second sentence of
     municipality and intended for other regions of the same                Article 15 of Directive 2001/83/EC permit a Member
     State, or does not that particular charge instead involve              State to require that, for registration of a homeopathic
     less favourable treatment of goods intended for those                  medicinal product that is manufactured using a number
     regions in comparison with goods exported in other                     of homeopathic stocks, a bibliography must be produced
     Member States, and does not this pecuniary charge                      that refers to the combination preparation as such?
     constitute an impediment to free movement of goods
     throughout the European market?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 311, p. 67.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                       beamt (Wien) by order of that Court of 27 October 2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               in the case of STRABAG AG against Österreichische
richt Berlin by order of that Court of 28 August 2003 in                                        Bundesbahnen
the case of meta Fackler KG against Federal Republic of
                            Germany
                                                                                (Case C-462/03)
                        (Case C-444/03)                                                         (2004/C 21/21)
                         (2004/C 21/20)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
                                                                       (Wien) (Federal Procurement Office, Vienna) of 27 October
                                                                       2003, received at the Court Registry on 4 November 2003,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of STRABAG AG against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Österreichische Bundesbahnen on the following questions:
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Berlin (Administrative Court Berlin) of 28 August 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2003, for a               1.   Is Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 93/38/EEC (1) to be inter-
preliminary ruling in the case of meta Fackler KG against                   preted as meaning that, contrary to the other factual
Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:                     situations covered by Article 2(2) of the Directive, in the
                                                                            area of transport ‘merely’ the operation of networks is to
                                                                            be considered a sectoral activity?
Is the rule contained in Paragraph 39(2) No 7a of the                  2.   Which activities fall within the scope of ‘the operation of
Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on Medicinal Products, ‘AMG’) com-                  networks providing a service to the public in the field of
patible with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament                transport by railway’ under Article 2(2)(c) of Directive
and of the Council of 6 November 2001 (1) (‘Directive 2001/                 93/38/EEC? To what extent are, in particular, measures
83/EC’) in so far as it refuses registration for a medicinal                in the field of infrastructure to be subsumed under this
product composed of bibliographically identified homeopathic                heading? To what extent are such measures in the field of
constituents if its ‘administration as a homeopathic medicinal              infrastructure to be classified under the heading ‘provision
product is not generally known’?                                            of networks’?


title: Case C-426/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of  22 November 2005  in Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 22 November 2005 in Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission
   (Case C-426/05)
   (2006/C 22/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of 22 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH and Telekom-Control-Kommission on the following questions:

               1.

               Are Articles 4 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) (‘Directive 2002/21/EC’) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘parties affected’ includes undertakings operating as competitors on the relevant market in respect of which specific obligations are not imposed, maintained or amended?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Article 4 of Directive 2002/21/EC preclude a national provision which provides that only the undertaking in respect of which specific obligations are imposed, amended or withdrawn has the status of a party to market analysis proceedings?


title: Case T-2/05: Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/22

         Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-2/05)
   (2005/C 69/40)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V., established in Hoofddorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the OHIM;

               —

               allow the registration of the Community trade mark application No 1 155 712;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The three dimensional mark of a white and blue rectangular tablet with an oval white centre for goods in classes 1 and 3 (Chemical products for industrial purposes; bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use,...) - application No 1 155 712

               Decision of the examiner:

               Rejection of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case T-718/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark W E — Earlier Community word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/53

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E)
   (Case T-718/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark W E - Earlier Community word mark WE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hong Kong Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: J.-H. Spåre, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. van Oerle and E. de Groot, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2014 (Case R 2305/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between WE Brand Sàrl and Hong Kong Group Oy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 August 2014 (Case R 2305/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between WE Brand Sàrl and Hong Kong Group Oy and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 September 2013;

               2.

               Rejects the opposition;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and WE Brand to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Hong Kong Group, including those necessarily incurred by Hong Kong Group for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.