title: Case C-358/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskuksen liikenne ja infrastruktuuri -vastuualue (Environment — Waste — Hazardous waste — Directive 2008/98/EC — Old telecommunications poles treated with CCA (copper-chromium-arsenic) solutions — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — List of uses for treated wood in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation — Old telecommunications poles used as underlay for duckboards)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskuksen liikenne ja infrastruktuuri -vastuualue
   (Case C-358/11) (1)

   (Environment - Waste - Hazardous waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Old telecommunications poles treated with CCA (copper-chromium-arsenic) solutions - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - List of uses for treated wood in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation - Old telecommunications poles used as underlay for duckboards)
   2013/C 123/05
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskuksen liikenne ja infrastruktuuri -vastuualue

      Defendants: Lapin luonnonsuojelupiiri ry and Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskuksen ympäristö ja luonnonvarat -vastuualue

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3) and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Substance subject to a restriction under Annex XVI of that regulation — Use of old telephone poles treated with CCA (copper-chrome-arsenic) solutions for underlay for hiking trails

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law does not, as a matter of principle, exclude the possibility that waste regarded as hazardous may cease to be waste within the meaning of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives if a recovery operation enables it to be made usable without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, also, if it is not found that the holder of the object at issue discards it or intends or is required to discard it within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

               2.

               Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009, in particular Annex XVII thereto, in so far as it authorises the use, subject to certain conditions, of wood treated with a ‘CCA’ (copper-chromium-arsenic) solution, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it is relevant for the purpose of determining whether such wood may cease to be waste because, if those conditions were fulfilled, its holder would not be required to discard it within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98.

               3.

               Articles 67 and 128 of Regulation No 1907/2006, in the version resulting from Regulation No 552/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that European Union law harmonises the requirements relating to the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a substance such as that relating to arsenic compounds which is the subject of a restriction under Annex XVII to that regulation.

               4.

               Annex XVII, point 19(4)(b), to Regulation No 1907/2006, in the version resulting from Regulation No 552/2009, which lists the applications for which, by way of derogation, wood treated with a ‘CCA’ (copper-chromium-arsenic) solution may be used, must be interpreted as meaning that the list in that provision is exhaustive in character and that, therefore, that derogation cannot be applied to cases other than those referred to therein. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the use of the telecommunications poles concerned as an underlay for duckboards does in fact come within the scope of the applications listed in that provision.

               5.

               The provisions of Annex XVII, point 19(4)(d), second indent, to Regulation No 1907/2006, in the version resulting from Regulation No 552/2009, according to which wood treated with a ‘CCA’ (copper-chromium-arsenic) solution must not be used in any application where there is a risk of repeated skin contact, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition at issue must apply in any situation which, in all likelihood, will involve repeated skin contact with the treated wood, such likelihood having to be inferred from the specific conditions of normal use of the application to which that wood has been put, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-351/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 April 2006  — Deutsche Bahn v Commission (State aid — Competitor's complaint — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation — Exemption from duty — Letter from the Commission to a complainant — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Challengeable act — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Concept of aid — Imputability to the State — Equal treatment)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 — Deutsche Bahn v Commission
   (Case T-351/02) (1)

   (State aid - Competitor's complaint - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation - Exemption from duty - Letter from the Commission to a complainant - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Challengeable act - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Concept of aid - Imputability to the State - Equal treatment)
   (2006/C 131/69)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bahn (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte, M. Reysen and W. Kirchhoff, then M. Schütte and M. Reysen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreutschitz and J. Flett, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert, F. Florindo Gijón and C. Saile, agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 September 2002 rejecting a complaint lodged by the applicant on 5 July 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 31, p. 19.


title: Case C-70/07: Order of the President of the Court of 14 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-70/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/62)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-123/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart
   (Case C-123/17)
   (2017/C 318/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nefiye Yön

      Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

      Questions referred

               1.

               Has the standstill clause laid down in Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 of the Association Council been completely superseded by the standstill clause laid down in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council, or is the lawfulness of new restrictions on the free movement of workers, which were introduced between the entry into force of Decision No 2/76 and the time when Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 became applicable, to continue to be assessed pursuant to Article 7 of Decision No 2/76?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is that Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 was not completely replaced: is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be fully applied also to the application of Article 7 of Decision No 2/76, with the result that Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 also covers on that basis a national provision, introduced with effect from 5 October 1980, under which the ability of the spouse of a Turkish worker to join that worker for the purpose of family reunification is made dependent on a national visa being issued?

               3.

               Is the introduction of such a national provision justified on the basis of an overriding reason in the public interest, in particular the objective of effective immigration control and the management of migration flows, where the particular circumstances of the individual case are taken into account through the operation of a hardship clause?


title: Case C-168/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2009 — Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa & Famiglia SpA

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2009 — Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa & Famiglia SpA
   (Case C-168/09)
   2009/C 167/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flos SpA

      Defendant: Semeraro Casa & Famiglia SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing a national law of a Member State which has introduced copyright protection for designs into its legal order in accordance with that Directive, the discretion accorded to such a Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection in the case of designs which — albeit meeting the requirements for protection laid down in copyright law — fell to be regarded as having entered into the public domain before the date on which the statutory provisions introducing copyright protection for designs into the domestic legal order entered into force, in so far as they had never been registered as designs or in so far as the relevant registration had already expired by that date?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing a national law of a Member State which has introduced copyright protection for designs into its legal order in accordance with that Directive, the discretion accorded to such a Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection in the case of designs which — albeit meeting the requirements for protection laid down in copyright law — fell to be regarded as having entered into the public domain before the date on which the statutory provisions introducing copyright protection for designs into the domestic legal order entered into force and where a third party — without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs — has already produced and marketed products based on such designs in that State?

               3.

               If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing a national law of a Member State which has introduced copyright protection for designs into its legal order in accordance with that Directive, the discretion accorded to such a Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection in the case of designs which — albeit meeting the requirements for protection laid down in copyright law — fell to be regarded as having entered into the public domain before the date on which the statutory provisions introducing copyright protection for designs into the domestic legal order entered into force and where a third party — without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs — has already produced and marketed products based on such designs in that State, where protection is precluded for a substantial period (a period of 10 years)?


title: Case T-192/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Caffaro v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/42

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Caffaro v Commission
   (Case T-192/06)
   (2006/C 212/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Caffaro S.r.l. (represented by: Alberto Santa Maria and Claudi Biscaretti di Rufia, lawyers,)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in so far as it imposes on Caffaro S.r.l., jointly and severally with SNIA S.p.A., a fine of EUR 1 078 000.

               —

               In the alternative, reduction of the fine on Caffaro S.r.l. to a symbolic amount.

               —

               Further in the alternative, substantial reduction of the fine on Caffaro S.r.l., taking account of the short duration of the infringement and of attenuating circumstances

               —

               The Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in this case is the same as in Case T-185/06 L'air Liquide v Commission.
   In support of its arguments, the applicant argues:

               —

               that it should be regarded as a victim rather than a participant in the hydrogen peroxide cartel. In assessing Caffaro's position in the proceeding in question, the Commission entirely failed to take account of the fact that, far from profiting from the cartel in question, Caffaro quit the the market in sodium perborate precisely as a consequence of the unlawful agreements made on the hydrogen peroxide market. The applicant emphasised to the Commission that it manufactured only sodium perborate, that it was merely a customer for hydrogen peroxide, and that it could therefore not be a member of the hydrogen peroxide cartel but rather a victim of it.

               —

               that the Commission made an obvious error by using for all the participants in the infringement, save the applicant, overall market shares in 1999, the last full year of the infringement concerning both products (sodium perborate and hydrogen peroxide). Surprisingly, in relation to Caffaro, the Commission used instead market data for 1998, whereas, according to settled case-law, the Commission must, for the purpose of assessing the specific weight of an undertaking, take into consideration the turnover achieved by each undertaking during the reference year. The case-law has interpreted that principle to the effect that only the use of a common reference year for all the undertakings participating in the same infringement guarantees equal treatment.

         The applicant also argues:

               —

               Infringement of defence rights in that, contrary to what the Commission maintains, representatives of Caffaro did not participate in the meeting in Brussels of 26 November 1998.

               —

               Misapplication of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and of the time-limit contained therein, inasmuch as Caffaro ceased participation in the presumed arrangement more than five years before the commencement of the Commission's investigation in relation to Caffaro.


title: Case C-307/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-307/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines)
   2012/C 258/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 — Distinctive character of the mark

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Deichmann SE shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-227/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2015 by Robert Aubineau and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Cases T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13, Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/15

         Appeal brought on 19 May 2015 by Robert Aubineau and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Cases T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13, Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case C-227/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Robert Aubineau and Others (represented by Ch.-E. Gudin, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council, Commission, France

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the prohibition on producers-distillers themselves distilling the wine they have produced in excess of the normal quantity, on the ground that they may apply for a licence, by becoming distillers beforehand.

               —

               set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the discriminatory character of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (1) which does not grant the same rights to spirits producers.

               —

               set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the wrongful conduct and liability of the institutions that have adopted rules which, when applied within a common organisation of the market, as in the present case, are incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination that has been enshrined as a general principle of EU law in the case-law of the Court of Justice and in Article 40 TFEU.

               —

               set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the harm suffered by the appellants as a result of a regulation that is open to two interpretations, a regulation which has led national courts to severely sanction the appellants. The regulation being open to two interpretations is the direct consequence of a text for which its author is liable, namely, in the present case, the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.
   First, the appellants request the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court which refuses to acknowledge the discriminatory character of Regulation No 1623/2000 that does not grant the same rights to spirits producers.
   Secondly, the appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by refusing to acknowledge the wrongful conduct and liability of the institutions that have adopted and interpreted rules which, when applied within a common organisation of the market, as in the present case, are incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination that has been enshrined as a general principle of EU law in the case-law of the Court of Justice and in Article 40 TFEU.
   Thirdly, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to acknowledge the harm they have suffered. Regulation No 1623/2000 being open to two interpretations has led the national courts to severely sanction the appellants and, accordingly, that illegality is the very cause of the harm suffered.
   Lastly, the appellants claim that the General Court misconstrued the meaning and scope of Article 65 of Regulation No 1623/2000 which lays down specific formalities for producers who themselves possess distillation facilities and who intend to carry out the compulsory distillation of the wine they have produced in excess of the normal quantity.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).


title: Case T-116/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Dorian Lacombe against the Council of the European Union

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/34

         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Dorian Lacombe against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-116/05)
   (2005/C 115/61)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by Dorian Lacombe, residing in Evry (France), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               order the Council to pay to the applicant an amount corresponding to the total amount of overtime worked in accordance with the statement signed for agreement by his immediate superior and by the Secretary-General of the Council, less the amount already paid,

               2.

               order the Council to pay to the applicant's social security scheme the employer's contributions provided for by the legislation in force,

               3.

               order the Council to pay to the applicant the unemployment benefits to which he would have been entitled if the employer's contributions had been paid in due time to his social security scheme,

               4.

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant default interest calculated at the ECB central rate plus 2 points on all sums which should have been paid under the auxiliary staff contract between the parties.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was a member of the auxiliary staff at the Council from 1 December 2002 to 31 July 2003. He claims that the Council reduced from 73 to 59.5 days the amount of overtime to which he was entitled for hours worked on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and days when the offices were closed, without informing him of the reasons. In support of this claim, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 57 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, infringement of Article 56 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Staff Notice No 88/93 and breach of the duty to state reasons.
   The applicant further alleges that, in breach of Article 70 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, the Council did not pay the contributions payable to the Caisse de Sécurité Sociale (French Social Security Fund) of which he was a member. The applicant also claims compensation for the damage which he suffered as a consequence.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 155, 25.6.2005

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         (2005/C 171/60)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

      OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

      OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

      OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

      OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Case C-271/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat (Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright and related rights — Public lending — Remuneration of authors — Adequate income)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-271/10) (1)

   (Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright and related rights - Public lending - Remuneration of authors - Adequate income)
   2011/C 252/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA)

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) (now Article 6(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/115/EC of 12 December 2006) — Remuneration of authors in the case of public lending — Sufficient remuneration

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a system under which the remuneration payable to authors in the event of public lending is calculated exclusively according to the number of borrowers registered with public establishments, on the basis of a flat-rate amount fixed per borrower and per year.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-438/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/48

         Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
   (Case T-438/16)
   (2016/C 343/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 127 870 designating the European Union

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 in Case R 1889/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or

               —

               remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the assessment of the similarity between goods and services and the resulting assessment of the likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-191/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/8

         Action brought on 26 April 2004 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-191/04)
   (2004/C 156/16)
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Bordes and G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the French Republic.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not providing the information to be collected by 31 December 1999 by the competent authorities or the appropriate bodies as part of the monitoring of waste discharges and sludges introduced by Article 15 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1), with respect to the agglomerations concerned by the 31 December 1998 time-limit, within six months of the Commission's request of 18 December 2000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(4) of that directive.

               2.

               Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and principal arguments:
   The French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide the Commission with the information pertaining to the monitoring situation as at 31 December 1999 for the water of the agglomerations concerned by an initial time-limit laid down in the directive, namely the agglomerations having an ‘EH’ (habitat equivalent) higher than 10 000 units which discharge their water into recipient waters considered to be sensitive areas.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.05.1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40)


title: Case C-470/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat, Vienna, by order of that court of 12 November 1999 in the case of Universale-Bau AG and the consortium of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger & Söhne Bauges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH

text:
4.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/11
Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission                    1. Does a legal person constitute a ‘contracting authority’
of the European Communities against the French Republic                     within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive
                                                                            93/37/EEC (1) even if it was not established for the specific
                         (Case C-460/99)                                    purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not
                                                                            having an industrial or commercial character, but it now
                          (2000/C 63/20)                                    meets such needs?
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 2 December 1999 by the Commission of               2. If Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GesmbH is not a con-
the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou                       tracting authority, does the planned construction of the
Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address             second biological treatment phase of the principal sewage
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              plant, Vienna, constitute the execution, by whatever means,
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by
                                                                            the contracting authority, and thus a ‘public works con-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                      tract’ within the meaning of Article 1(a), in conjunction
the Court of Justice should:                                                with Article 1(c), of Directive 93/37/EEC?
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             3. If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative,
    Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995 fixing                does Directive 89/665/EEC (2) preclude a national pro-
    the principles governing the organisation of official inspec-           vision which fixes a time-limit for the review of an
    tions in the field of animal nutrition, the French Republic             individual decision of the contracting authority so that on
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and           expiry of that time-limit the decision can no longer be
    the Treaty;                                                             challenged in the course of the ongoing contract award
                                                                            procedure? Is it necessary, on pain of forfeiture [of rights],
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                               for every defect to be pleaded by the persons concerned?
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                 4. If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                            is it sufficient for the body inviting tenders to determine
The binding nature of Articles 249 and 10 EC means that                     that the applications will be evaluated according to a
Member States to which a directive is addressed are required                method lodged with a notary, or is it necessary for the
to amend their legislation within the time-limits laid down                 evaluation criteria already to have been communicated in
therein. The period prescribed in Article 24 of Directive                   the call for candidates or the tender documents?
95/531/EC expired on 30 April 1998 and France has not
adopted the requisite measures or even given details of any
existing provisions which might meet the requirements of
certain provisions of the directive.                                   (1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
(1) OJ 1995 L 265, p. 17.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekon-
trollsenat, Vienna, by order of that court of 12 November
1999 in the case of Universale-Bau AG and the consortium               Action brought on 10 December 1999 by the Commission
of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger & Söhne Bau-                     of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
ges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und Tiefbau
     GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH
                                                                                (Case C-473/99)
                         (Case C-470/99)
                          (2000/C 63/21)                                                          (2000/C 63/22)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
(Procurement Review Chamber), Vienna, of 12 November                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 December           10 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Universale-Bau AG        Communities, represented by Wolfgang Bogensberger, a mem-
and the consortium of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger &         ber of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Söhne Bauges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also a
Tiefbau GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH, on                  member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
the following questions:                                               Luxembourg.


title: Case T-411/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Laufen Austria v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity of the infringement — Multipliers — Mitigating circumstances — Economic crisis — Pressure exerted by wholesalers — 2002 Leniency Notice — Reduction of the fine — Significant added value)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Laufen Austria v Commission
   (Case T-411/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity of the infringement - Multipliers - Mitigating circumstances - Economic crisis - Pressure exerted by wholesalers - 2002 Leniency Notice - Reduction of the fine - Significant added value)
   2013/C 325/49
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Laufen Austria AG (Wilhelmsburg, Austria) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona and L. Moscoso del Prado González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and F. Castilla Contreras, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laufen Austria AG to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-614/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer v Anneliese Kuso (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Directive 76/207/EEC — Fixed-term employment contract concluded prior to the accession of the Member State — Expiry of the fixed term after the accession — Employment legislation fixing the expiry date for the contract as the last day of the year in which retirement age is reached — Retirement age for men different from the age set for women)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer v Anneliese Kuso
   (Case C-614/11) (1)

   (Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Fixed-term employment contract concluded prior to the accession of the Member State - Expiry of the fixed term after the accession - Employment legislation fixing the expiry date for the contract as the last day of the year in which retirement age is reached - Retirement age for men different from the age set for women)
   2013/C 325/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer

      Defendant: Anneliese Kuso

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) and (c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 4), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15) — Fixed term employment contracts concluded between an institution of a Member State and its employees, before the accession of that State to the European Union, under which the expiry of the contracts is fixed as the last day of the year in which a male employee has attained the age of 65 and a female employee the age of 60

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of a body of employment rules which form an integral part of an employment contract concluded before the Member State concerned acceded to the European Union and under which the employment relationship is to come to an end upon attainment of the fixed retirement age, which differs depending on whether the employee is a man or a woman, constitutes discrimination prohibited by that directive where the employee concerned reaches that age after the accession.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by decision of the Conseil d'État, France of 28 March 1997 in the case of Société Baxter, Société B. Braun Medical SA, Société Fresenius France and Société Anonyme des Laboratoires Bristol-Myers Squibb against French State (Case C-254/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 252/23
1 . those tanks have been permanently fixed by one of the                undertaking's activities, and the Bankruptcy and Probate
      manufacturer's dealers or by a coachbuilder, with a                Court subsequently, and without any deferment other than
      permanent fitting enabling fuel to be used directly                that resulting from the time which that court requires to
      both for the purposes of propulsion and for the                    examine the matter, issues a winding-up decree pursuant
      operation of refrigeration systems; and                            to the winding-up petition and takes the date of that
                                                                         winding-up petition as the operative date ?
2 . the aim of that fitting is to provide the haulage unit —             (') Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the
      driving unit and container — with a sufficient fuel                      approximation of tha laws of the Member States relating to
      range to :                                                               collective redundancies ( OJ No L 48 , 22 . 2 . 1975 , p. 29 ).
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 245 , 26 . 8 . 1992, p. 3 .
      ( a ) avoid difficulties in obtaining fuel in countries
             where availability is uncertain and where the poor
             quality of refining makes such fuel dangerous for
             vehicles,
       ( b) avoid the need to obtain fuel at sometimes                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by decision of the
             prohibitive prices in countries where it is too             Conseil d'Etat, France of 28 March 1997 in the case of
             expensive,                                                  Societe Baxter, Societe B. Braun Medical SA, Societe
                                                                         Fresenius France and Societe Anonyme des Laboratoires
                                                                                Bristol-Myers Squibb against French State
       ( c ) avoid the administrative difficulties involved in the
             need to recover value added tax in the countries                                         Case C-254/97 )
             where it has been charged, and                                                            97/C 252/48
       ( d ) use as few fuel supply points as possible in order
             to be able to negotiate the best prices with fuel           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
             companies ?                                                 European Communities by a decision of the Conseil d'Etat
                                                                         ( Council of State ), France, of 28 March 1997, received at
                                                                         the Court Registry on 14 July 1997, for a preliminary
(') OJ No L 105 , 23 . 4 . 1983 , p . 1 .                                ruling in the case of Societe Baxter, Societe B. Braun
( 2 ) OJ No L 123 , 17 . 5 . 1988 , p . 2 .                              Medical        SA,    Societe    Fresenius   France      and      Societe
                                                                         Anonyme des Laboratoires Bristol-Myers Squibb against
                                                                         French State on the following questions:
                                                                          1 . Do Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957
                                                                                establishing the European Community preclude
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Civilret,                             domestic legislation, enacted in 1996, which imposes a
Hillered, by decision of 4 July 1997 in the case of Dansk                       special tax for that year, the rate of which is to be
Metalarbejderforbund, acting on behalf of John Lauge and                        fixed between 1,5% and 2% , on the net turnover,
               Others, v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                            achieved in the State of taxation between 1 January
                            ( Case C-250/97)                                    1995 and 31 December 1995 by undertakings trading
                                                                                in proprietary medicinal products, in reimburseable
                              ( 97/C 252/47 )                                   proprietary medicinal products and medicinal products
                                                                                approved for use by public bodies and which allows
                                                                                costs accounted for during that same period in respect
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of expenditure only on research carried out in the
                                                                                State of taxation to be deducted from the amount
European Communities by decision of 4 July 1997 from                            taxable ?
the Civilret ( Civil Court), Hillerod, which was received at
the Court Registry on 9 July 1997, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Dansk Metalarbejderforbund ( Danish                 2 . Does Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the
Metalworkers' Federation), acting on behalf of John                             European Community preclude such legislation ?
Lauge and Others, v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond
 ( Employees ' Guarantee Fund ) on the following question:
                                                                          3 . In the event that either of the previous questions is
                                                                                answered in the negative, is the deductibility from the
Does the phrase 'collective redundancies arising from                           taxable amount of expenditure on research carried out
termination of the establishment's activities as a result of a                  in the State of taxation to be considered aid within the
 judicial decision' ( see Article 3 ( 1 ), second subparagraph,                 meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty establishing the
 and Article 4 ( 4 ) of Directive 75/129/EEC ('), as amended                    European Community ?
 by Directive 92/56/EEC (2 )) cover the case in which the
 collective redundancies occur on the same day as the
 employer filed a winding-up petition and terminated the


title: Case T-396/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/39

         Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-396/04)
   (2005/C 6/77)
   Language of the case: Italian
   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 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A., represented by Vincenzo Biliardo and Cristiano Bacchini, lawyers.
   The other party to the proceedings before the appeal board was: SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions).
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 June 2004 in Case R-699/2003-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark considered:

               Figurative mark ‘NICKY’ – Application No 1 315 985 for products in Class 16 (Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, for household and cleaning purposes).

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The French company SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions).

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               Figurative French marks ‘NOKY’ (No 1 346 586) and ‘noky’ (No 1 400 192) for products in Class 16.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition dismissed.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the Opposition Division decision, the matter being referred back to it for reconsideration.

               Pleas in law:

               Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).


title: Case T-112/05: Action brought on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/37

         Action brought on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-112/05)
   (2005/C 143/70)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands) and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), represented by C. R. A. Swaak and J. de Gou, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               to review the legality of the contested decision under Article 230 EC;

               —

               to annul the contested decision under Article 231 EC;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest the Commission's Decision of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-2/37.533-Choline Chloride), finding that the applicants were involved in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the choline chloride sector in the EEA and imposing a fine on the applicants.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit a violation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in that the Commission attributed the responsibility for the infringement also to Akzo Nobel NV, the holding company of the Akzo Nobel group. According to the applicants, Akzo Nobel NV did not have a decisive influence over the commercial policy of its subsidiaries.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally to the applicants exceeded for one of the applicants the limit of 10 % of the turnover. According to the applicants, the Commission should have limited the individual liability of each company.
   The applicants finally submit a violation of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicants, the Commission based its finding of joint and several liability of Akzo Nobel NV on an erroneous reasoning and has not indicated why it has established joint and several liability for one of the applicants beyond the limit of 10 % of the turnover.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1)


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-242/03 (1)

   (2004/C 228/106)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 25 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-242/03, Ulf Jacoby v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-135/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — France v Commission (State aid — Pensions — Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom — Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions — Advantage)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — France v Commission
   (Case T-135/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Pensions - Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Advantage))
   (2015/C 118/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, then D. Colas Diégo and R. Coesme, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, L. Flynn and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 on State aid C 25/08 (ex NN 23/08) reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012, L 279, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Action brought on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-297/97)

text:
C 318/6                     EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18 . 10 . 97
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of                        In the third indent of Article 3 (2 ) of the Council Directive
   the European Communities against the French Republic                     on freedom of access to information on the environment,
                             ( Case C-284/97 )                              does the ground of exclusion for matters which are
                                                                            'the subject of preliminary investigation proceedings'
                                ( 97/C 318/08 )                             encompass proceedings of an administrative authority that
                                                                            end with the issue of an administrative act which, if an
An action against the French Republic was brought before                    action is brought, can become the subject of judicial
the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the Commission                     proceedings ? (')
of the European Communities, represented by Fernando
Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-                 (') Council Directive 90/313/EEC ( OJ L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990 , p . 56 ).
Castera, a national civil servant on secondment to that
service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :
                                                                            Action brought on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply                                                Case C-297/97 )
      with Council Directive 93/40/EEC (') of 14 June 1993                                             ( 97/C 318/ 10 )
      amending Directives 81 /851 /EEC ( 2 ) and 81 /852/
      EEC (') on the approximation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
      products, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      obligations under the EC Treaty and that Directive
                                                                            13 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
      ( except as regards Article 1 ( 7)),
                                                                            Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
— oder the French Republic to pay the costs .                               Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi .
Identical to those submitted in Case C-282/97 ( 4 ); the
period prescribed in Article 3 of Directive 93/40/EEC                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
expired on 31 December 1994 .
                                                                             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and/or, in any event,
(')  OJ  L 214, 24 . 8 .   1993 , p . 31 .                                        notify the laws, regulations and administrative
(z ) OJ  L 317, 6 . 11 .   1981 , p . 1 .                                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
(■') OJ  L 317, 6 . 11 .   1981 , p . 16 .
(4 ) OJ   C 295 , 27 . 9 . 1997, p . 20 .
                                                                                93/65/EEC of 19 July 1993 on the definition and
                                                                                use of compatible technical specifications for the
                                                                                procurement of air-traffic-management equipment and
                                                                                systems ('), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations pursuant to that Directive and the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
                                                                            2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
 of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case of Ulrich Gloger
                                                                                proceedings.
 against Bergamt Kamen, joined party: Vertreter des öffent
 lichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das
                       Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                              ( Case C-296/97 )
                                 ( 97/C 318/09 )                             Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a
                                                                             Directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      each Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
 European Communities by order of the Twenty-first                           obligation on Member States to comply with the
 Chamber of the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land                          transposition periods which Directives lay down . That
 Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher Administrative Court for the                   period expired on 20 July 1994 without the Italian
 Land North Rhine-Westphalia ) of 28 July 1997, received                     Republic having adopted the provisions necessary to
 at the Court Registry on 12 August 1997, for a peliminary                   comply with the Directive referred to in the form of order
 ruling in the case of Ulrich Gloger against Bergamt                         sought by the Commission.
 (Mining Office ) Kamen, joined party: Vertreter des öffent
 lichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das                       (') OJ L 187, 29 . 7 . 1993 , p . 52 .
 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Representative of the Public
 Interest before the Higher Administrative Court for the
 Land North Rhine-Westphalia ) on the following question :


title: Case C-481/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2006/7/EC — Bathing water quality — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-481/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 2006/7/EC - Bathing water quality - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 317/21
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Thomannová-Körnerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Jirkalová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, (OJ 2006 L 64, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.


title: Case C-264/07: Action brought on 1 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/17

         Action brought on 1 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-264/07)
   (2007/C 170/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M. Konstantinidis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to draw up by 22 December 2004 for each river basin district falling within its territory an analysis of its characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater and an economic analysis of water use, in accordance with the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, while, by failing to submit summary reports of the analyses required under that article, it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2) of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Directive 2000/60 entered into force on 22 December 2000. Therefore the Member States were obliged to have completed the analyses and the review required under Article 5(1) of the Directive by 22 December 2004 at the latest, and to submit to the Commission a summary report concerning those analyses, as laid down by Article 15(2) of the directive, by 22 March 2005 at the latest.
   In their response to the Commission's letter of formal notice, the Greek authorities acknowledged the failure to comply with Article 15(2) of the directive and undertook to forward the required report in June 2006. So far as concerns, however, the Hellenic Republic's compliance with the obligations flowing from Article 5(1) of the directive, the Greek authorities were silent, despite the fact that the Commission in its letter of formal notice cast doubt on whether the Hellenic Republic had fulfilled its obligations under that article.
   It was apparent from analysing the report which was finally sent in June 2006 that the Hellenic Republic still had not complied with the obligations that flow from Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60.

      (1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.


title: Case C-111/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria lodged on 7 March 2014  — ‘GST — Sarviz AG Germania’ v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na NAP

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria lodged on 7 March 2014 — ‘GST — Sarviz AG Germania’ v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na NAP
   (Case C-111/14)
   2014/C 142/36
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘GST — Sarviz AG Germania’

      Defendant: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na NAP

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that either the taxable person who makes taxable supplies of goods or services, or the person who purchases the goods or receives the services, is exclusively liable for the value added tax, where the taxable supply of goods or services is carried out by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the value added tax is payable, in so far as that is provided for by the Member State concerned, and not that both persons share liability for that tax?

               2.

               In so far as it is to be assumed that only one of the two persons is liable for the value added tax — either the supplier/service provider or the purchaser/recipient, where that is provided for by the Member State concerned, is the rule in Article 194 of the directive also applicable to cases in which the recipient of the services wrongly applied the reverse-charge procedure because it assumed that the service provider had not created a fixed establishment for the purposes of value added tax in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, although the service provider had in fact created a fixed establishment in relation to the services supplied?

               3.

               Must the principle of fiscal neutrality, which is of fundamental importance for the establishment and functioning of the common system of value added tax, be interpreted as meaning that it permits a tax assessment practice, such as that in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the value added tax is also invoiced to the service provider despite the reverse-charge procedure applied by the recipient of the supply of services, where account is taken of the fact that the recipient has already invoiced the tax for the supply of services, that there is no risk of any loss of tax revenue and that the system for correction of tax documents provided for under national law is not applicable?

               4.

               Must the principle of value added tax neutrality be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit the tax authorities, on the basis of a national provision, to refuse to grant a refund of the value added tax invoiced several times to the provider of a service, in respect of which the recipient invoiced the value added tax in accordance with Article 82(2) of the ZDDS, where the tax authorities refused to grant the recipient the right to deduct the value added tax invoiced several times on account of the absence of the corresponding tax document, but the system for correction provided for under national law on the basis of the present binding tax adjustment notice is no longer applicable?

      (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-240/13: Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/37

         Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods)
   (Case T-240/13)
   2013/C 207/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alifoods, SA (Alicante, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2013 in Case R 407/2012-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alifoods, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Alifoods’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No B 1 825 002

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international and Community word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


               8.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/19

         Action brought on 21 February 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland
   (Case E-3/08)
   (2008/C 113/16)
   An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 February 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Florence Simonetti, acting as agents.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12u of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA; and

               2.

               the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The present case concerns an EC Regulation on detergents.

               —

               Article 7 of the EEA Agreement states that:

                  ‘Acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of their internal legal order as follows:

                           (a)

                              an act corresponding to an EEC Regulation shall as such be made part of the internal legal order of the Contracting Parties;

                           (b)

                              an act corresponding to an EEC directive shall leave to the authorities of the Contracting Parties the choice of form and method of implementation.’.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has failed to make the Regulation part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 2003 in Case T-179/02: Jan Pflugradt against European Central Bank (Staff of the European Central Bank — Performance appraisal — Action for annulment)

text:
C 171/24                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
D. Lopez Garrido, lawyer, with an address for service in                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: M. Gòmez
Leal and J.F. De Wachter) — application for annulment, first,                                          of 7 May 2003
of the decision of 27 June 2001 of the selection board for
Competition PE/90/A not to admit the applicant to that                      in Case T-327/01: Luciano Lavagnoli against Commission
competition and, second, of the notice relating to that                                     of the European Communities ( 1)
competition — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar; has given a               (Officials — Delay in drawing up staff report — Action for
                                                                                damages)
judgment on 22 May 2003 in which it:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/38)
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 3, 5. 1. 2002.                                                    In Case T-327/01: Luciano Lavagnoli, official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Berchem
                                                                            (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
                                                                            lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
                                                                            and L. Lozano Palacios) — application for payment of damages
                                                                            in compensation for non-material damage caused by the delay
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in drawing up a definitive staff report for the period 1 July
                                                                            1997 to 30 June 1999 — the Court of First Instance
                            of 7 May 2003                                   (single judge: Mr Pirrung); J. Palacio González, Principal
                                                                            Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on
                                                                            7 May 2003 in which it:
in Case T-278/01: Eric den Hamer against Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
                                                                            1.     Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 2 000;
(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action
                             for damages)                                   2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                           (2003/C 171/37)                                  3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)                         (1 ) OJ C 56, 2. 3. 2002.
In Case T-278/01: Eric den Hamer, official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Malines (Belgium),
represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
munities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and A. Dal Ferro) —
application, first, for annulment of the decision adopting the                                        of 20 May 2003
staff report of the applicant for the period 1995-1997 and,
second, for payment of damages in compensation for damage                   in Case T-179/02: Jan Pflugradt against European Central
caused inter alia by the delay in drawing up that report — the                                             Bank (1)
Court of First Instance (single judge: Mr Pirrung); D. Christens-
en, Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on               (Staff of the European Central Bank — Performance
7 May 2003 in which it:                                                                    appraisal — Action for annulment)
1.     Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                                          (2003/C 171/39)
       EUR 3 000;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            In Case T-179/02: Jan Pflugradt, residing in Frankfurt am Main
                                                                            (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, with an address for
( 1) OJ C 3, 5. 1. 2002.                                                    service in Luxembourg, against European Central Bank
                                                                            (Agents: V. Saintot, T. Gilliams and B. Wägenbaur) — appli-
                                                                            cation for annulment of the appraisal of the applicant’s
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 171/25
performance for 2001 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,                                        of 8 April 2003
for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 20 May 2003 in
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co.
                                                                                KG v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            (Action for annulment — Action now devoid of purpose —
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/41)
( 1) OJ C 202, 24. 8. 2002.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                            established in Wismar (Germany), represented by D. Reich,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2002/468/EC, of 15 January 2002
                          of 3 April 2003                                   on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic
                                                                            Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western
                                                                            Pomerania (OJ 2002 L 165, p. 15) — the Court of First
in Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission                       Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and
                                                                            M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 April
                                                                            2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
       (Official — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                                                                            1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present action.
                          (2003/C 171/40)
                                                                            2.    The Commission shall pay the costs, including those relating to
                                                                                the procedure for interim relief.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ 156 of 29.6.02.
In Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm, residing in Stockh-
olm, represented by J. R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Devolvé,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application for compen-
sation for the material and non-material damage caused, inter                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
alia, by the length of time taken to process a claim submitted
by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second                                               of 27 March 2003
Chamber), composed of N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
and W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            in Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH
3 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
1.    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the action for
      annulment.                                                            (Action for annulment — No need to give a decision —
                                                                            Action for damages — Admissibility — Plea of inadmissi-
2.    The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible.                          bility joined to the application on the substance)
3.    The Commission shall pay half of the applicant’s costs as well                                   (2003/C 171/42)
      as its own costs. The applicant shall bear the other half of her
      own costs.                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.02.
                                                                            In Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel,
                                                                            established in Planneg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Nittendorf (Germany), LNS — Lothar Niemeyer


title: Case T-225/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BERG — Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)
   (Case T-225/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BERG - Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 108/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented initially by: J. Krenzel, then by T. Stein and A. Segler, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea, then by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anson's Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: O Löffel and P. Lange, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 740/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-8/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella
   (Case C-8/16)
   (2016/C 090/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Frosinone

      Party to the main proceedings

   Paola Tonachella

      Question referred

   Must Article 49 et seq. and Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as supplemented in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in [Case C-72/10], be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation which makes it compulsory to transfer free of charge, at the time of the cessation of business owing to the expiry of the final term of a licence or as a result of measures revoking or terminating that licence, rights to use tangible and intangible property to collect bets and to manage betting and gaming?