title: Case C-184/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/14

         Action brought on 18 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-184/11)
   2011/C 186/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Decisions 2002/820/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Álava in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1); 2002/892/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Álava (OJ 2002 L 314, p. 1); 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2003 L 17, p. 1); 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (OJ 2002 L 279, p. 35); 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Guipúzcoa in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2002 L 314, p. 26); 2002/540/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (OJ 2002 L 174, p. 31) (‘the 2001 decisions’) as well as under Article 260 TFEU, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 December 2006 in Commission v Spain (Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03 [2006] ECR I-11887; ‘the 2006 judgment’), relating to Spain’s failure to fulfil its obligations under those decisions.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 236 044,80 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment, from the day on which the judgment is delivered in this case until the day on which the 2006 judgment is fully complied with.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 25 817,40 by the number of days on which the infringement continues from the date on which the 2006 judgment was delivered until:

                           —

                           the date on which the Kingdom of Spain recovers the aid declared illegal by the 2001 decisions, if the Court of Justice holds that the recovery has in fact been carried out before judgment in this case is handed down.

                           —

                           the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered, if the 2006 judgment has not been fully complied with by that date.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the Spanish authorities have not taken all the measures necessary to comply with the 2006 judgment since they have not recovered all the aid declared illegal and incompatible in the 2001 decisions. Firstly, the Spanish authorities considered certain individual aid to be compatible with the internal market without that aid fulfilling the requirements of a national aid scheme approved by the Commission and without, in any case, fulfilling the requirements set out in the Guidelines on national regional aid (OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9). Secondly, the Spanish authorities applied a deduction to certain beneficiaries of up to EUR 100 000 per beneficiary for a period of three years without respecting the rules relating to de minimis aid. Thirdly, in some cases the Spanish authorities retrospectively applied tax deductions provided for in Spanish tax laws although not all the requirements laid down by Spanish legislation for the application of such deductions were fulfilled. Finally, fourthly, not all of the payment orders issued by the Spanish authorities were paid by the beneficiaries of illegal aid. According to the Commission’s calculations, the amounts for which recovery is pending represent approximately 87 % of the total illegal aid to be recovered.


title: Case F-105/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Scheefer v Parliament

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/52

         Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Scheefer v Parliament
   (Case F-105/09)
   2010/C 37/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment the decisions of the defendant refusing to convert the applicant’s contract as a temporary agent into a contract for an indefinite period in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS. In addition, application for compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2009;

               —

               annul the Parliament’s decision of 12 October 2009;

               —

               annul the legal characterisation of the original contract and its date of expiry set at 31 March 2009;

               —

               accordingly, convert the applicant’s contract of engagement into an engagement for an indefinite period;

               —

               compensate the applicant for the loss she suffered as a result of the Parliament’s conduct;

               —

               in the alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the Tribunal reaches the conclusion that, despite the forming of a contract of engagement for an indefinite period, the working relationship has ceased, grant damages and interest for wrongful termination of the contractual relationship;

               —

               in the further alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the Tribunal reaches the conclusion that no conversion of the contract is possible, grant damages and interest for the loss suffered by the applicant by reason of the European Parliament’s wrongful conduct;

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions and, in particular, an order that the Parliament pay damages and interest in connection with the loss suffered;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-459/01: Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in              Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
      Case T-336/999, served on 1 October 2001;                        provides that a directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, on the Member State to which it is addressed, entails
      annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the           an obligation on the Member States to adhere to the time-
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of               limits for implementation laid down in directives. That time-
      21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to                limit expired on 1 July 2000 before the Italian Republic had
      Community trade mark application number 703 231;                 taken the necessary measures to comply with the directive
                                                                       which is the subject of the Commission’s claims.
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-
The same as in Case C-456/01P.                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
(1) Not yet published in the court reports.                                                     (Case C-459/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/72)
                                                                       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2001
Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                by Christopher Docksey and Karen Banks, acting as agents,
                              Republic                                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-458/01)
                                                                       The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 84/71)
                                                                       1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC of
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                24 October 1995 concerning the protection of individ-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-                    uals with regard to the processing of personal data and
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      on the free movement of such data (1) and European
represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Arnaud Bordes, acting as                Parliament and Council Directive 97/66/EC of 15 Decem-
Agents.                                                                      ber 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and
                                                                             the protection of privacy in the telecommunications
                                                                             sector (2), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
                                                                             Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  its obligations under the said Directives, and
—     declare that by failing to adopt within the prescribed           2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
      period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/90/EC
      of 15 November 1999 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
      on animal health conditions governing intra-Community
      trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and         Pleas in law and main arguments
      hatching eggs the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/42               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the               and for certain simplifications of that procedure (1), the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period               third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation
has expired without Ireland having enacted the provisions                   (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the                  the implementation of the Community transit procedure
conclusions of the Commission.                                              and for certain simplifications of that procedure (2) and
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Commission
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.                                         down provisions for the implementation of Council
(2) OJ L 024, 30.1.1998, p. 1.                                              Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
                                                                            munity Customs Code (3) and under Articles 2 and 9 to
                                                                            11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89
                                                                            of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC,
                                                                            Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own
                                                                            resources (4);
Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Com-                        (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
mission of the European Communities against the
                 Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-460/01)
                                                                      —     Infringement of the second sentence of the second
                          (2002/C 84/73)                                    subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1062/87,
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Regulation
                                                                            No 1214/92 and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
                                                                            Regulation No 2454/93 (the regulation implementing the
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                Community        Customs      Code,     hereinafter     ‘the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  implementing regulation’): Article 96 of Regulation
28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European                          No 2913/92 (5) (the Community Customs Code, herein-
Communities, represented by H.M.H. Speyart and G. Wilms,                    after ‘the CCC’) and Articles 356 and 379 of the
acting as Agents.                                                           implementing regulation lay down mandatory time-limits
                                                                            for the acts to be performed by the declarant and the
                                                                            offices of departures and destination in the context of an
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 external Community transit procedure, in particular
                                                                            where a consignment covered by that transit procedure
(1) declare that, by having, between 1 January 1991 and                     is not presented in good time to the office of destination.
     31 December 1995:                                                      The Netherlands and the Commission are in disagreement
                                                                            concerning the correct application of the period of three
     —     failed, where the declarant in an external Com-                  months which starts to run on the day of notification
           munity transit procedure has not, within three                   of non-discharge (Article 379(2) of the implementing
           months from notification by the customs office                   regulation and analogous previous provisions). That time-
           of departure that the consignment has not been                   limit is primarily binding on the declarant, since he is
           presented at the customs office of destination,                  required within that period to furnish proof of the
           furnished proof of the regularity of the transit                 regularity of the transit operation concerned. However,
           operation concerned — at the latest on the third day             that time-limit is also binding on the Member State in
           following the expiry of that time-limit, to take steps           which the customs office of departure is located, inas-
           to enter in the accounts and recover the customs                 much as it follows from the penultimate sentence of
           debt and other charges involved, or by having done               Article 317(2) of the implementing regulation that where,
           so later than provided for by Regulation (EEC,                   following the expiry of that time-limit, proof has not
           Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June                     been furnished by the declarant, the Member State
           1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,                concerned is required to take prompt steps to recover the
           dates and time limits (OJ, English Special Edition               customs debt in question. On the first day of the fourth
           1971 (II), p. 354);                                              month after notification of non-discharge, the office of
                                                                            departure has available to it all the particulars necessary
     —     failed promptly to make available to the Com-                    in order to calculate the customs debt in question
           mission the own resources relating thereto; and                  (Article 217(1) and the opening wording and subpara-
                                                                            graph (a) of 218(3) of the CCC) and to identify the debtor
     —     refused to pay the default interest connected there-             concerned — in this case, the declarant (opening wording
           with,                                                            and subparagraph (b) of 218(3) of the CCC). Under
                                                                            Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC, the debt must then be
     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                entered in the accounts within two days or, in certain
     obligations under the second sentence of the second                    circumstances, within 14 days. Consequently, subject to
     subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation                 possible extension of the time-limit pursuant to
     (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for                    Article 219 of the CCC, the Member State has no
     the implementation of the Community transit procedure                  discretion enabling it to decide at what point in time it


title: Case T-267/15: Action brought on 27 May 2015 — db Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/40

         Action brought on 27 May 2015 — db Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)
   (Case T-267/15)
   (2015/C 245/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: db Technologies Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Zingsheim, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Sigma’ — Application No 10 779 734

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2015 in Case R 1444/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and the decision of OHIM of 28 April 2014 and reject the opponent’s/defendant’s opposition;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


6.9.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/43
        Removal from the register of Case T-52/98 (1)                    European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-292/99: Bouw- en Handelsonderneming J. Peeters
                                                                         B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
                        (2003/C 213/83)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-52/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 151 of 16.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/86)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
        Removal from the register of Case T-53/98 (1)                    (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                        (2003/C 213/84)                                  of Case T-295/99: Diesel Oil Company B.V. v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-53/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-303/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 166 of 30.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/87)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
        Removal from the register of Case T-292/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 213/85)                                  European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-303/99: Hoogendijk ATW B.V. v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-604/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/31

         Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
   (Case T-604/11)
   2012/C 32/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2011 in case R 1695/2010-4 and reject the opposition No B 1383639; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 6588991

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the applied mark.


title: Case T-Joined Cases T-319/12 and T-321/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Spain v Commission (State aid — Cinematography — Aid for the construction and operation of a film studio complex — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Criterion of private market economy investor — State aid for regional purposes — Aid to promote culture — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-Joined Cases T-319/12 and T-321/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Cinematography - Aid for the construction and operation of a film studio complex - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Criterion of private market economy investor - State aid for regional purposes - Aid to promote culture - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 282/37
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogade del Estado); Cuidad de la Luz, SAU (Alicante, Spain); and Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SAU (Alicante) (represented initially by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, J. Belenguer Mula and M. Muñoz de Juan, and subsequently by: J. Buendía Sierra and J. Belenguer Mula, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3025 final of 8 May 2012 concerning State aid SA.22668 (C 8/2008 (NN 4/2008)), which Spain implemented in favour of Ciudad de la Luz, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders La Ciudad de la Lux, SA, Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SA and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-352/94 between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-283/98 P)

text:
C 299/16               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.9.98
Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö                       2.    incorrectly held that its own conclusion that the
Aktiebolag against the judgment delivered on 14 May                         Commission had failed to prove all the alleged effects
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the                     of the infringement could not materially affect its
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                      assessment of the gravity of the infringement and
Case T-352/94 (1) between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag                          thus could not lead to a reduction in the fine.
     and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-283/98 P)                             (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994, p. 8.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.
                          (98/C 299/26)                               (3) Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
                                                                          Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
                                                                          (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87).
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-352/94 between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö                          Appeal brought on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
Aktiebolag, whose registered address is at S-89180                    Bergslags AB against the judgment delivered on 14 May
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by Antony Woodgate                  1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
and Martin Smith, Solicitors, of Simmons & Simmons,                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Case T-354/94 (1) between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias                        AB and the Commission of the European Communities
Hardt.
                                                                                (Case C-286/98 P)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                                     (98/C 299/27)
(i)   annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
      14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 at least in part;                  1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
(ii) annul Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July                   Case T-354/94 between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB
      1994 relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of             and the Commission of the European Communities, was
      the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) in so             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      far as it relates to the appellant at least in part;            Communities on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                      Bergslags AB, whose registered address is at S-79180
                                                                      Falun, Sweden, represented by Alexander Riesenkampff
(iii) cancel or at least reduce the amount of the fine                and Stefan Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, of Hasche Eschenlohr
      imposed on the Appellant;                                       Peltzer Riesenkampff Fischötter, Brussels, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz,
                                                                      Faltz & Kremer, 6, rue Heinrich Heine.
(iv) order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs
      before this Court and before the Court of First
      Instance.
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94 and annul
The appellant relies on grounds of appeal based on an                      Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
infringement of Community law in particular of                             relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of the EC
Articles 85, 172, 173 and 190 of the EC Treaty and of                      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) because the
Council Regulation No 17 (3) and of the general principles                 Court of First Instance's conclusions were made on the
of Community law.                                                          basis of substantive errors of Community law which:
The appellant raises grounds of appeal including that the                  (i)   infringe Articles 85 and 15(2) of Council
Court of First Instance:                                                         Regulation No 17 (3) in that the appellant is held
                                                                                responsible for the conduct of its subsidiaries
                                                                                Kopparfors, Feldmühle and CBC without regard
1.    incorrectly held that the Commission's failure to set
                                                                                to the legal criteria developed by the European
      out in the decision the factors of which it had
                                                                                Courts and the Commission for the imputation
      systematically taken account when fixing the
                                                                                of infringements committed by subsidiaries;
      appellant's fine was not an infringement of the duty
      to state reasons such as would justify annulment in
      whole or in part of the decision and of the fine                     (ii)  infringe the rules regarding the burden of proof
      imposed;                                                                   in that, with respect to the imputation of the


title: Case T-105/07: Action brought on 2 April 2007 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG)

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Action brought on 2 April 2007 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG)
   (Case T-105/07)
   (2007/C 129/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MarketTools, Inc. (San Francisco, United-States) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and A. González Hähnlein, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA (Maia, Portugal)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 25 January 2007 (Appeal No R 253/2006-2);

               —

               order Optimus-Telecomunicações S.A. to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZOOMERANG ’for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — application No 1 603 950

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA

      Mark or sign cited: The national word and figurative marks ‘BOOMERANG ’for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the similarity of the goods and services and the trade marks in question.


title: Case C-310/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Taxation — VAT — Second Directive 67/228/EEC — Article 8(a) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Supply of goods — Basis of assessment — Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent — Purchases by third-party customers — Price reduction after the chargeable event — Direct effect)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-310/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Second Directive 67/228/EEC - Article 8(a) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Supply of goods - Basis of assessment - Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent - Purchases by third-party customers - Price reduction after the chargeable event - Direct effect)
   2013/C 46/10
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Grattan plc

      Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 8(a) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16) — Basis of assessment — Supply of goods — Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent, acting as intermediary in the supply of goods to the final consumer — Commission taking the form either of a payment of money or of a credit against amounts owed to the company in respect of goods purchased by the agent for the agent’s own use — Retrospective reduction of the basis of assessment of supplies of goods made before 1 January 1978, by virtue of the direct effect of Article 8(a) of the directive and/or application of the principles of fiscal neutrality or equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(a) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not conferring upon a taxable person the right to treat the basis of assessment of a supply of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the time of that supply of goods, an agent received a credit from the supplier which the agent elected to take either as a payment of money or as a credit against amounts owed to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods that had already taken place.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-442/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 27 September 2007 — Verein Radetzky-Orden v Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft Feldmarschall Radetzky

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 27 September 2007 — Verein Radetzky-Orden v Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’
   (Case C-442/07)
   (2007/C 283/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Patent — und Markensenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein Radetzky-Orden

      Defendant: Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’.
   Question referred
   Is Article 12(1) of [First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks] to be construed as meaning that a trade mark is put to (genuine) use to distinguish goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings in the case where a non-profit-making association uses the trade mark in announcements for events, on business papers and on advertising material and that trade mark is used by the association's members when collecting and distributing donations inasmuch as those members wear badges featuring that trade mark?


title: Case C-133/07 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2007 by Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities concerning Case T-259/02

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/11

         Appeal brought on 6 March 2007 by Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities concerning Case T-259/02
   (Case C-133/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (represented by: S. Völcker and G. Terhorst, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T 259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 (1) in so far as it dismisses RZB's action;

               —

               Annulment of Article 3 of the Commission decision of 11 June 2002 (C (2002) 2091 final) in so far as it concerns RZB;

               —

               In the alternative, a reduction at the discretion of the Court in the fine imposed on RZB in Article 3 of the contested decision;

               —

               The Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court infringed Article 81 EC by accepting that the Commission can conclude merely from the fact that bank committees covered the territory of one Member State that trade between Member States may be affected.
   The Court erred in law in classifying the bank committees as ‘a very serious infringement ’within the meaning of the Guidelines on fines. It misapplied the criteria mentioned in the Guidelines with regard to gravity (the nature of the infringement, actual impact on the market and size of the relevant geographic market), failed to take into account the selectivity of the Commission's action and did not ultimately carry out the overall appraisal of all viewpoints, which it had itself demanded.
   The Court erred in law in attributing to RZB the market shares for the whole of the agricultural credit cooperative sector. In doing so it incorrectly confined its basis for review to only ‘manifest ’unequal treatment in respect of other banks. The legal basis necessary for a complete attribution was lacking.
   The Court erred in law in assessing RZB's cooperation. It applied the criterion of ‘significant added value ’in contravention of the principle of non-retroactivity, failed to appreciate the voluntary nature of RZB's various contributions amounting to cooperation, erroneously assumed a reversal of the burden of proof as regards the value of the cooperation, impermissibly rejected the Common account of the facts as an inappropriate form of cooperation and erred in not recognising RZB's admission in respect of the anti-competitive purpose of the agreements as a contribution amounting to cooperation.

      (1)  OJ C 331, p. 29.


title: Case C-369/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Oost-Brabant, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against N.F. Gielen, M.M.J. Geerings, F.A.C. Pruijmboom, A.A. Pruijmboom, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Drug precursors — Monitoring of trade between the Member States — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Concept of ‘scheduled substance’  — Substance ‘alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile’ (APAAN) — Scheduled substance ‘1-phenyl-2-propanone’ (BMK))

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Oost-Brabant, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against N.F. Gielen, M.M.J. Geerings, F.A.C. Pruijmboom, A.A. Pruijmboom,
   (Case C-369/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Concept of ‘scheduled substance’ - Substance ‘alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile’ (APAAN) - Scheduled substance ‘1-phenyl-2-propanone’ (BMK)))
   (2015/C 118/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Oost-Brabant, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch

      Parties in the main criminal proceedings

   N.F. Gielen, M.M.J. Geerings, F.A.C. Pruijmboom, A.A. Pruijmboom,

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors must be interpreted as meaning that the classification of ‘scheduled substance’, within the meaning of those provisions, does not apply to a substance, such as alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile, which is not referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 or the Annex to Regulation No 111/2005, even if it may, by readily applicable or economically viable means, within the meaning of those regulations, easily be converted into a substance referred to in those annexes.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-306/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament (Appeal — Staff case — Pensions — Survivor's pension — Payment of 50% owing to the existence of another surviving spouse — Act adversely affecting an official — Complaint out of time)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament
   (Case T-306/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Pensions - Survivor's pension - Payment of 50% owing to the existence of another surviving spouse - Act adversely affecting an official - Complaint out of time)
   2009/C 90/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Lohr a. Main, Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07 Braun-Neumann v Parliament [2008] ECR-SC I-A-000, seeking annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs incurred at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-298/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2007 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v deutsche internet versicherung AG

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2007 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v deutsche internet versicherung AG
   (Case C-298/07)
   (2007/C 223/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände —Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

      Defendant: deutsche internet versicherung AG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a service provider required under Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (1) to provide a telephone number before entering into a contract with a user of the service, so that he can be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is negative:

                           (a)

                           Is a service provider required under Article 5(1)(c) of the directive to offer a second means of communication, in addition to indicating his electronic mail address, prior to entering into a contract with a user of the service?

                           (b)

                           If the answer is positive: Does it suffice, for the purposes of a second means of communication, that the service provider installs an enquiry mask enabling the user to consult the service provider via the Internet, the user's enquiry then being answered by the service provider by means of electronic mail?

      (1)  OJ L 178, p. 1.


title: Case C-638/11 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/5

         Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission
   (Case C-638/11 P)
   2012/C 65/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment (judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 in case T-199/04 in so far as the General Court (i) annulled Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (‘Contested Regulation’) and (ii) ordered the Council to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Applicant);

               —

               dismiss the third limb of the fifth plea of the Application;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for the remainder of the Application;

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the costs of the appeal; and

               —

               reserve costs for the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council submits that the General Court erred in finding that the abolition of the previous anti-dumping duties on bed linen from Pakistan and the implementation of a scheme of generalised tariff preferences in favour of Pakistan at the start of 2002 constituted ‘other factors’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. Consequently, the General Court erred in finding that in the present case the institutions committed a violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation because they failed to separate and distinguish the alleged injurious effects of these factors.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan
   OJ L 66, p. 1


title: Case T-646/14: Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Micula a.o. v Commission

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/29

         Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Micula a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-646/14)
   (2014/C 439/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ioan Micula (Oradea, Romania); S.C. European Food SA (Drăgăneşti Romania); S.C. Starmill Srl (Drăgăneşti); S.C. Multipack Srl (Drăgăneşti); Viorel Micula (Oradea) (represented by: K. Hobér, J. Ragnwaldh, T. Pettersson, E. Gaillard and Y. Banifatemi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision C(2014) 3192 final of 26 May 2014 issued in Case State aid SA.38517 (2014/NN) — Micula v Romania (ICSID arbitration award) ordering Romania to suspend any action which may lead to the execution or implementation of the award of 11 December 2013 rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal established under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in the case Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20), as the Commission considers that the execution of the award constitutes unlawful State aid, until the Commission has taken a final decision on the compatibility of that State aid with the internal market;

               —

               award the applicants the costs of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence.

                           —

                           EU law is not applicable to the case and the Commission lacks the competence to issue a decision under Article 11(1) of Regulation no 659/1999. The Commission’s decision fails to acknowledge that Romania is obligated by international law to execute the ICSID award without delay and that Romania’s international law obligations take primacy over EU law. The Commission’s decision infringes Article 351(1) TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, which recognise and protect Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention and under the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law and assessment.

                           —

                           The Commission erred in law by wrongly categorising the execution of the ICSID award as a new State aid measure and violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations. The Commission’s entire decision is based on the incorrect assumption that the execution of the ICSID award constitutes State aid under EU law. The ICSID award neither gives an economic advantage to the applicants, nor does it constitute a selective measure, nor a voluntary measure that is imputable to Romania, nor does it distort or threaten to distort competition.


title: Case C-288/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘L.Č.’ IK v Valsts ienemumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 146(1)(e) — Exemptions on exportation — Supply of services directly connected with the exportation or the importation of goods — Meaning)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘L.Č.’ IK v Valsts ienemumu dienests
   (Case C-288/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 146(1)(e) - Exemptions on exportation - Supply of services directly connected with the exportation or the importation of goods - Meaning))
   (2017/C 283/12)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘L.Č.’ IK

      Defendant: Valsts ienemumu dienests

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down in that provision does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a transaction consisting in the transport of goods to a third country, where those services are not provided directly to the consignor or the consignee of those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case C-168/04: Action brought on 5 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/2

         Action brought on 5 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-168/04)
   (2004/C 146/03)
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Barbara Eggers and Enrico Traversa, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC inasmuch as by means of Article 18(12) to (16) of the AuslBG and Article 10(1)(3) FrG it is disproportionately restricting the posting of workers who are third-country nationals in connection with the provision of services.

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Providers of services resident in another Member State are adversely affected by three different supervisory procedures with three different Austrian authorities in regard to the posting of workers who are third-country nationals to Austria. Thus the Ausländerbeschaftigungsgesetz (Law on employment of foreign nationals - AuslBG) requires an ‘EU Posting of Workers Certificate’ to be obtained at the regional branch of the employment service in addition to the visa under the Fremdengesetz (Law on foreign nationals - FrG) issued by the competent consulates, and a notification procedure to check pay and working conditions in accordance with the Arbeitsvertragsrechtsanpassungsgesetz (Law adapting employment contracts - AVRAG).
   I.   EU Posting of Workers Certificate, Article 18 (12) to (16) AuslBG
   The requirement of an EU Posting of Workers Certificate pursuant to Article 18(12) to (16) of the AuslBG has a restrictive effect on freedom to provide services in the Community.
   The requirement of an EU Posting of Workers Certificate in addition to the visa under the FrG and the notification procedure under the AVRAG is disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the Republic of Austria of combating abusive practices and protecting workers.
   1.   Prevention of abusive practices
   The Austrian Government is infringing the principle of proportionality, as effective control of the conditions governing the posting of workers in connection with the provision of services can be ensured through less far-reaching measures.
   The legitimate interest of a Member State in checking compliance with the conditions governing the posting of workers who are third-country nationals by companies providing services can be adequately served by the requirement of a visa. Any additional control, as here by way of an EU Posting of Workers Certificate, which is issued by another authority, is unjustified.
   2.   Compliance with pay and working conditions
   The substantive condition in Article 18(13)(2) AuslBG under which the EU Posting of Workers Certificate is issued only if the Austrian wage and working conditions laid down in the AVRAG are complied with likewise results in disproportionate duplicated checks.
   The requirement of an EU Posting of Workers Certificate and the procedure associated with it are disproportionate to the objective sought of ensuring worker protection, since the Republic of Austria already has available to it less far-reaching means.
   The Republic of Austria transposed the posting of workers directive by means of the AVRAG which provides for the possibility of ex post controls in order to check that the requisite salaries are actually being paid.
   3.   Regular workers
   The requirement set out in Article 18(13)(1) AuslBG as a condition for the EU Posting of Workers Certificate of at least one-year's employment or an indefinite employment contract with the provider of services constitutes an unjustified restriction on freedom to provide services. The objective of combating abusive practices can also be attained through far less restrictive measures.
   II.   Refusal of residence permits, Article 10(1)(3) FrG
   Under Article 10(1)(3) FrG a residence permit must be refused when the worker has already entered the country without a visa. That provision prohibits a posting, even if the providers of the services can establish lawfulness, namely that an application has already been made on the basis of which a Member State can carry out the required checks.
   The automatic refusal of a residence permit under Article 10(1)(3) FrG is disproportionate to the objective of control of the conditions governing the right of residence and should therefore be declared unlawful.
   The automatic refusal of a visa in cases of merely formal illegal entry considerably restricts freedom to provide services and renders that freedom illusory in some service sectors. In the current state of Community law the Austrian Republic has, by virtue of the checks on issue of entry visas, means available to it which are just as effective but less far-reaching of reviewing whether third-country nationals are entering the country for the purpose of providing services.


title: Case C-396/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satakunnan käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU — Directive 96/71/EC — Articles 3, 5 and 6 — Workers of a company with its seat in Member State A, posted to carry out works in Member State B — Minimum wage provided for by the collective agreements of Member State B — Locus standi of a trade union with its seat in Member State B — Legislation of Member State A prohibiting the assignment to a third party of claims relating to pay)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satakunnan käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna
   (Case C-396/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Directive 96/71/EC - Articles 3, 5 and 6 - Workers of a company with its seat in Member State A, posted to carry out works in Member State B - Minimum wage provided for by the collective agreements of Member State B - Locus standi of a trade union with its seat in Member State B - Legislation of Member State A prohibiting the assignment to a third party of claims relating to pay))
   (2015/C 118/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Satakunnan käräjäoikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry

      Defendant: Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, prevents a rule of the Member State of the seat of the undertaking that has posted workers to the territory of another Member State — under which the assignment of claims arising from employment relationships is prohibited — from barring a trade union, such as the Sähköalojen ammattiliitto, from bringing an action before a court of the second Member State, in which the work is performed, in order to recover for the posted workers, pay claims which relate to the minimum wage, within the meaning of Directive 96/71, and which have been assigned to it, that assignment being in conformity with the law in force in the second Member State.

               2.

               Article 3(1) and (7) of Directive 96/71, read in the light of Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it does not preclude a calculation of the minimum wage for hourly work and/or for piecework which is based on the categorisation of employees into pay groups, as provided for by the relevant collective agreements of the host Member State, provided that that calculation and categorisation are carried out in accordance with rules that are binding and transparent, a matter which it is for the national court to verify;

                           —

                           a daily allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as part of the minimum wage on the same conditions as those governing the inclusion of the allowance in the minimum wage paid to local workers when they are posted within the Member State concerned;

                           —

                           compensation for daily travelling time, which is paid to the workers on condition that their daily journey to and from their place of work is of more than one hour’s duration, must be regarded as part of the minimum wage of posted workers, provided that that condition is fulfilled, a matter which it is for the national court to verify;

                           —

                           coverage of the cost of those workers’ accommodation is not to be regarded as an element of their minimum wage;

                           —

                           an allowance taking the form of meal vouchers provided to the posted workers is not to be regarded as part of the latter’s minimum salary; and

                           —

                           the pay which the posted workers must receive for the minimum paid annual holidays corresponds to the minimum wage to which those workers are entitled during the reference period.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-488/04: Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/33

         Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-488/04)
   (2005/C 57/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 177/2004-2of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘BIN LADIN’ in Arabic characters for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41 – Application No 2 224 160.

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal to register.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant claims that registration of the mark in question would not be contrary to either public policy or accepted principles of morality.


title: Case T-240/10: Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/46

         Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-240/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/70
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, Agents)

      Defendant(s): European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch.

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

               —

               In the alternative, if the claim for annulment of Decision 2010/136/EU is dismissed, annulment of Article 2(b) and (c) thereof.

               —

               An order that the Commission pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant takes issue with Commission Decisions 2010/135/EU (1) and 2010/136/EU (2) of 2 March 2010.
   In the grounds for its application the applicant alleges, as its first plea in law, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and infringed the precautionary principle in authorising the placing on the market of the genetically modified potato known as ‘Amflora’ (‘GM potato’) despite the fact that, when the risks were assessed, well-founded objections were raised to the effect that the authorisation — having regard to the objectives of guaranteeing a high level of protection of health and the environment — could cause damage to the health of humans and animals and to the environment. In the view of the applicant, the marketing authorisation is based on a risk assessment which is unsubstantiated or deficient in many respects, which has implications for the legality of the Commission Decisions.
   As regards the risks to health caused by the GM potato at issue, the applicant alleges that the antibiotic-resistence marker gene present in the GM potato and the transfer of that gene from GM crops to bacteria entail a risk to human and animal health and the environment which is unacceptable, especially having regard to the obligation to ensure a high level of protection for health and the environment, and that there is, at the least, significant scientific uncertainty regarding the risks, which the Commission has not adequately allayed. The applicant concludes that the marketing authorisation infringes the precautionary principle and breaches Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, (3) which gives that principle concrete legal expression. Moreover, the scientific opinion issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which served as a basis for the Commission Decisions also contradicts the views held in this matter by the World Health Organisation, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the European Medicines Agency.
   In the view of the applicant, the assessment of the risk to the environment posed by the GM potato is deficient and inadequate having regard to:

               —

               The lack of any open-air trials relating to all the bio-geographical regions of the European Union;

               —

               The lack of any assessment of impact, or of cumulative long term impact, on untargeted organisms, or of impact on the dynamic of species populations and genetic diversity;

               —

               The inadequacy of the assessment of possible impact on animal health and possible consequences for the food chain.

         As its second plea in law the applicant alleges that the Commission breached Regulation No 1829/2003/EC. (4) In that regard, the applicant argues that Article 2(b) and (c) of Decision 2010/136/EU, which authorises the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence, in food or crops, of genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 0,9 %, is contrary to law, given that, as far as authorisation is concerned, Regulation No 1829/2003/EC does not envisage any safety margin or allow the Commission to apply any safety margin in the event of the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified organisms.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (notified under document C(2010) 1193) (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2010) 1196) (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 15).

      (3)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).


title: Case C-405/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Bertram Holst v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS (Social policy — Informing and consulting employees — Directive 2002/14/EC — Transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC by way of legislation and also by way of collective agreement — Effects of the collective agreement with regard to an employee who is not a member of the union which is a party to that agreement — Article 7 — Protection of employees’ representatives — Requirement of more extensive protection against dismissal — No requirement)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Bertram Holst v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS
   (Case C-405/08) (1)

   (Social policy - Informing and consulting employees - Directive 2002/14/EC - Transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC by way of legislation and also by way of collective agreement - Effects of the collective agreement with regard to an employee who is not a member of the union which is a party to that agreement - Article 7 - Protection of employees’ representatives - Requirement of more extensive protection against dismissal - No requirement)
   2010/C 80/04
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Bertram Holst

      Defendant: Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) — Implementation of the directive through a collective agreement — Effects of the collective agreement for an employee who is not a member of the union which concluded that agreement — Implementing legislation not providing for a higher standard of protection against dismissal than currently provided for, in respect of groups of employees not covered by the collective agreement

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community must be interpreted as not precluding its transposition by way of a collective agreement which results in a group of employees being covered by the agreement in question, even though the employees in that group are not members of the union which is a party to that agreement and their field of activity is not represented by that union, provided that the collective agreement is such as to guarantee to the employees coming within its scope effective protection of the rights conferred on them by Directive 2002/14.

               2.

               Article 7 of Directive 2002/14 must be interpreted as not requiring that more extensive protection against dismissal be granted to employees’ representatives. However, any measure adopted to transpose that directive, whether provided for by legislation or by collective agreement, must comply with the minimum protection threshold laid down in that Article 7.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-336/09: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2011 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Topcom — Earlier Community and Benelux word marks TOPCOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2011 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)
   (Case T-336/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Topcom - Earlier Community and Benelux word marks TOPCOM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 63/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch and M. Eck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Topcom Europe (Heverlee, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2009 (Case R 1500/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Topcom Europe NV and Häfele GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Topcom Europe NV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-522/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 November 2014  — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 November 2014 — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten
   (Case C-522/14)
   (2015/C 065/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sparkasse Allgäu

      Defendant: Finanzamt Kempten

      Question referred

   Does the freedom of establishment (Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ex Article 43 [of the Treaty establishing] the European Communities) preclude a provision in a Member State under which a credit institution established in its national territory must, on the death of a domestic testator, also notify the tax office responsible for the administration of inheritance tax in the national territory of those of the testator’s assets which are held or managed in a dependent branch of the credit institution in another Member State, where there is no similar notification obligation in the other Member State and credit institutions in that State are subject to banking secrecy any breach of which constitutes a criminal offence?


title: Case C-300/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg
   (Case C-300/07)
   (2007/C 235/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik

      Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is the requirement of ‘financing by the State’ as referred to in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) to be interpreted as including a situation where the State prescribes membership of a sickness insurance fund and the duty to pay contributions — whose amount is dependent on income — to the relevant sickness insurance fund, which sets the contribution rate, but the sickness insurance funds are linked to one another by a system of solidarity-based financing described in greater detail in the grounds hereof and the satisfaction of the liabilities of each individual sickness insurance fund is guaranteed?

                           (b)

                           Is the requirement referred to in the second alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) that the body be ‘subject to management supervision by those bodies’ to be interpreted to the effect that State legal supervision which concerns current or future transactions — with other possible means of State intervention described in the grounds hereof — is sufficient to satisfy that requirement?

               2.

               If the first question — in part (a) or (b) — is answered in the affirmative, are letters (c) and (d) of Article 1(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of goods which are individually manufactured and tailored, in terms of their form, to meet the needs of the particular customer, and on whose use the individual customer is to be advised, are to be classified as ‘supply contracts’ or as ‘service contracts’? Is only the value of the particular services to be taken into consideration?

               3.

               If the provision referred to in the second question is to be or could be classified as a ‘service’, is Article 1(4) of the directive — as distinct from a ‘framework agreement’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the directive — to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘service concession’ also includes the award of a contract in the form where

                           —

                           the decision on whether and in what cases the contractor is awarded specific contracts is taken not by the contracting authority, but by third parties,

                           —

                           the contractor is paid by the contracting authority because by law only that authority is liable to pay remuneration and is required to provide the service to third parties, and

                           —

                           the contractor does not have to provide, or offer as available, services of any kind prior to their use by the third parties?

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.