               18.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/10

         Action brought on 15 July 2012 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-8/12)
   2012/C 314/09
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 15 July 2012 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul the contested decision, as notified to the applicants on 18 May 2012, in ESA Case No 68736 (DB Schenker), in so far as it denies access to:

                           (i)

                           a complete statement of content in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak);

                           (ii)

                           a letter dated or received on 13 July 2010 from Norway Post;

                           (iii)

                           minutes from meetings between the defendant, including its president, and Norway Post and/or the Norwegian government;

               2.

               annul the contested decision, as notified to the applicants on 23 May 2012, in ESA Case No 68736 (DB Schenker), in so far as it denies access to a complete statement of content of the case file in the same case;

               3.

               annul the contested decision, as notified to the applicants on 2 July 2012, in ESA Case No 68736 (DB Schenker), in so far as it denies access to:

                           (a)

                           the procedures for administering case files, including but not limited to routines for registering incoming/outgoing correspondence and internal documents; who is authorised to open/close case numbers and register documents/events on a case; what kind of information must be registered about each document/event in the defendant’s database;

                           (b)

                           the procedures for handling public access requests under the Rules on Access to Documents established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008;

                           (c)

                           the ESA College decisions containing the current empowerment of the defendant’s director of the administration department, the director of the competition and State aid department, and the director of the legal and executive department;

               4.

               order the defendant and any interveners to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’) are part of an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB.

               —

               On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The decision was upheld by the EFTA Court in Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority. The applicants are pursuing a damages claim against Norway Post for losses caused by the infringement, and want to review how the defendant conducted the investigation and administrative procedure. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents belonging to ESA Case No 34250, under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD), established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008.

               —

               On 8 March 2012, the applicants served a pre-litigation notice on the defendant under Article 37(2) of the SCA, on the basis that the defendant had failed to take a final decision on their access request, submitted on 3 August 2010. In a separate action, in Case E-7/12, the applicants submit that the defendant subsequently failed to take a decision on their access request after the statutory pre-litigation period expired, and handle their access request in an otherwise lawful manner, thereby also causing them losses.

               —

               The applicants submit, in the present action, that they filed two additional access to documents requests with the defendant, on 12 March 2012 and 11 April 2012, seeking the statement of content in their own access case, registered as ESA Case No 68736, as well as the internal procedure/instructions governing the defendant’s administration of its case files and handling of public access requests.

               —

               On 18 May 2012, 23 May 2012 and 2 July 2012, the defendant notified the applicants of decisions concerning their first access request of 3 August 2010, their second access request of 12 March 2012 and their third access request of 11 April 2012, respectively. By this action, the applicants seek to annul those decisions, either in full or in part.

         The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

               —

               in relation to the first decision, on 18 May 2012, infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 16 of the SCA,

               —

               in relation to the second decision, on 23 May 2012, committed a misuse of its powers, infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 16 of the SCA, and

               —

               in relation to the third decision, on 2 July 2012, infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 16 of the SCA.


title: Case C-378/04: Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/23

         Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-378/04)
   (2004/C 262/42)
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter Kreppel, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 1999/38/EC of 29 April 1999 amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagens (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 66) by not adopting the necessary legislative and administrative measures for the full implementation on that directive, or by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission.

               2.

               Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing Directive 1999/38/EC expired on 29 April 2003.


title: Cases T-413/10 and T-414/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Socitrel v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Reasonable time)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Socitrel v Commission
   (Cases T-413/10 and T-414/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Reasonable time))
   (2015/C 302/46)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Socitrel — Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria, SA (Trofa, Portugal) (represented by: F. Proença de Carvalho and T. Faria, lawyers) (Case T-413/10); and Companhia Previdente — Sociedade de Controle de Participações Financeiras, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Proença de Carvalho and J. Caimoto Duarte, lawyers) (Case T-414/10)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-413/10 and T-414/10 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Socitrel — Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria, SA and Companhia Previdente — Sociedade de Controle de Participações Financeiras, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-122/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 8 March 2010 — Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Ving Sverige AB

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 8 March 2010 — Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Ving Sverige AB
   (Case C-122/10)
   2010/C 113/55
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Marknadsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konsumentombudsmannen (KO)

      Defendant: Ving Sverige AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the requirement ‘thereby enables the consumer to make a purchase’ in Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an invitation to purchase exists as soon as information on the advertised product and its price is available so that the consumer may make a decision to purchase, or is it necessary that the commercial communication also offer an actual opportunity to purchase the product (e.g. an order form) or that there be access to such an opportunity (e.g. an advertisement outside a shop)?

               2.

               If the answer to the above question is that it is necessary that there be an actual opportunity to purchase the product, is that to be regarded as existing if the commercial communication refers to a telephone number or website where the product can be ordered?

               3.

               Is Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a price is met if the commercial communication contains an entry-level price, that is to say, the lowest price for which the advertised product or category of products can be bought at the same time as the advertised product or category of products are available in other versions or with other content at prices which are not stated?

               4.

               Is Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement concerning a product’s characteristics is met as soon as there is a verbal or visual reference to the product, (2) that is to say, so that the product is identified but not further described?

               5.

               If the answer to the above question is affirmative, does that also apply where the advertised product is offered in many versions, but the commercial communication refers to them only by a common designation?

               6.

               If there is an invitation to purchase, is Article 7(4)(a) to be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for only certain of a product’s main characteristics to be given and for the trader to refer in addition to its website, on the condition that on that site there is essential information on the product’s main characteristics, price and other terms in accordance with the requirement in Article 7(4)?

               7.

               Is Article 7(4)(c) to be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient to give an entry-level price for the price requirement to be met?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

      (2)  Commission staff working document ‘Guidance on the implementation/application of directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices’, p. 47f.


title: Case T-692/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative mark representing an animal — Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal)
   (Case T-692/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative mark representing an animal - Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 118/32)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Rasiewicz and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma SE and Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013—5);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               3.

               Orders Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-145/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 166/ 11
Duties Tribunal , Manchester, of 2 April 1997, which was                        81/851/EEC (2 ) on the approximation of provisions
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 1997, for a                          laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
preliminary ruling in the Case of Norbury Developments                          relating to veterinary medicinal products and laying
Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on                         down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary
the following question :                                                        medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
In relation to a supply of land which has not been built on
but on which at the time of supply the erection of                       — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
buildings has been legally authorized by a permission
granted in accordance with the law of the Member State
and which the tribunal has held to be building land                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
is the United Kingdom entitled to exempt the supply
under Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth Directive (*)?                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Notwithstanding that:                                                    paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
                                                                         oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
( a ) the taxation of supplies of land, including supplies of            adopt the measures necessary to comply with such
       land which is indisputably building land has altered              directives within the time-limit prescribed therein . The
       since the United Kingdom adopted the Sixth Directive              time-limit in question expired on 31 December 1993 but
       on 17 May 1977, in particular since the enactment of              France has not adopted the necessary measures .
       the Finance Act 1989 , which introduced the election
       to waive VAT exemption in respect of certain such                 ( ] ) OJ No L 297, 1992 , p . 12 .
       supplies; and                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 1981 , p . 1 .
( b ) the taxation of supplies of land which is indisputably
       building land has altered since the United Kingdom
       adopted the Sixth Directive on 17 May 1977, in
       particular since the enactment of the Finance Act 1989
       which required certain such supplies which were                   Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of
       previously exempt to be standard-rated as civil                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of
       engineering works and noting that the supply would                                                 Belgium
       have been exempt had the supply taken place before                                           ( Case C-145 /97 )
       17 May 1977 under item 1 of group 1 of Schedule 5
       to the Finance Act 1972 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/22 )
(') Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the            An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
      uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                         on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
                                                                         Principal Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a
                                                                         national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   the European Communities against the French Republic
                           ( Case C-144/97 )                             The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         that the Court should :
                             ( 97/C 166/21 )
                                                                         — declare that, by adopting the Decree of 9 November
An action against the French Republic was brought before                        1993 concerning standards of quality and safety
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             in      furnished       accommodation     without    first
 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                                communicating it to the Commission in draft form,
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,                              the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Principal Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a                           obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 83/
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,                       189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                for the provision of information in the field of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                            technical standards and regulations ('),
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative measures necessary in order to                  In the Commission's view, the decree in issue contains —
       comply with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of                         for example, in Article 12 ( relating to electrical
       22 September 1992 ( ] ) widening the scope of Directive            equipment), Article 13 ( relating to gas installations ) and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Article 23 ( 2 ) ( relating to fire protection equipment) —                       Removal from the register of C-205/90 ( ] )
technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 ( 5 )                                        ( 97/C 166/24 )
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC .
                                                                       By order of 20 February 1997 the President of the Court
(') OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                       removal from the register of Case C-205/90 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel
                                                                       te Kortrijk ): Les Assurances du Credit Namur SA v.
                                                                       1 . PVBA 'Bowy' and 2 . G. Decoopman .
                                                                       ( 1 ) OJ No C 212, 25 . 8 . 1990 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 7 April
1997, in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          Case C-149/97 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 126/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 166/23 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/25
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
European Communities by direction of the VAT and                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Duties Tribunal of 7 April 1997, which was received at                 removal from the register of Case C-126/96 ( reference for
the Court Registry on 17 April 1997, for a preliminary                 a preliminary ruling from Her Majesty's Court of Session
ruling in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry              in Scotland, Edinburgh ): Marie Brizard and Roger
against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the                International SA v. William Grant & Sons ( International )
                                                                       Ltd and William Grant & Sons Ltd .
following question :
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
'In the light of the findings of fact in paragraph 3—19 and
21 of the Decision of the Tribunal and in circumstances of
the sort found in paragraph 21 (which is summarized
below ), are the services supplied by such an association,
being a non-profit-making organization, exempt from VAT
as falling within the scope of Article 13A.1 ( 1 ) of the                         Removal from the register of C-133/96 ( ')
Sixth Directive ( J ) by virtue of the following words:                                            ( 97/C 166/26 )
                                                                       By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
"(...) organizations with aims of a (...) trade-union (...)            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
nature (...)"?                                                         removal from the register of Case C-133/96 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Anco
                                                                       na ): Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
Paragraph 21 , in summary, states that the association is a            Sri dei Flli Monti .
voluntary association of individuals comprising of
employees in the retail motor industry. The primary                    (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
purposes of the association are the improvement of the
standards of its members at work, the improvement of
career structures within the         different   sectors    of the
industry and the consequent enhancement of the public
perception of the industry and the people working within
it. The association seeks to achieve these ends by                                Removal from the register of C-186/95 (')
responding to the requirements of the industry for skills at                                       ( 97/C 166/27 )
all levels, by validating courses ( run by other institutions )
that teach those skills, by making awards on completion
of those courses and by grading its members, by                        By order of 27 February 1997 the President of the Court
disseminating information designed to keep its members                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
up to date with developments in the industry and in their              removal from the register of Case C-186/95 (reference
skills and by keeping a job placement register.'                       for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                       di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ):
 O Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Luciano Iommi, Giovanni
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          Carnovale, Franco De Bonis, Giorgio Iommi and Antonio
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                Iommi .
    uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-213/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation): Syndicat professionnel coordination des pêcheurs de l'étang de Berre et de la region v Électricité de France (EDF) (Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention — Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources — Article 6(3) — Authorisation to discharge — Direct effect)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-213/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation): Syndicat professionnel coordination des pêcheurs de l'étang de Berre et de la region v Électricité de France (EDF) (1)

   (Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention - Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources - Article 6(3) - Authorisation to discharge - Direct effect)
   (2004/C 228/25)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-213/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Syndicat professionnel coordination des pêcheurs de l'étang de Berre et de la region and Électricité de France (EDF) — on the interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources, signed in Athens on 17 May 1980, approved by Council Decision 83/101/EEC of 28 February 1983 (OJ 1983 L 67, p. 1), and of Article 6(1) of the Protocol as amended at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries held in Syracuse on 7 and 8 March 1996, which amendments were approved by Council Decision 1999/801/EC of 22 October 1999 (OJ 1999 L 322, p. 18) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources, signed in Athens on 17 May 1980, approved by Council Decision 83/101/EEC of 28 February 1983 and, following its entry into force, Article 6(1) of the Protocol as amended at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries held in Syracuse on 7 and 8 March 1996, which amendments were approved by Council Decision 1999/801/EC of 22 October 1999, have direct effect, so that any interested party is entitled to rely on those provisions before the national courts.

               2.

               Those same provisions must be interpreted as prohibiting, without an authorisation issued by the national competent authorities, the discharge into a saltwater marsh communicating with the Mediterranean Sea of substances which, although not toxic, have an adverse effect on the oxygen content of the marine environment.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-601/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/13

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission
   (Case T-601/11 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2012/C 109/30
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and C. Barslev, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 6499 final of 20 September 2011 on the measure No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-6/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Koblenz by order of that Court of 4 December 2002 in the dispute of administrative law between Eiterköpfe and Land Rheinland-Pfalz

text:
C 101/14                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          26.4.2003
             ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE                                   received at the Court Registry on 8 January 2003, for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling in the dispute of administrative law between
                          (First Chamber)                                    Eiterköpfe and Land Rheinland-Pfalz on the following ques-
                                                                             tions:
                        of 30 January 2003
in Case C-176/02 P: Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS v                           1.    On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of Council
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                                Directive 1999/31/EC (1) laying down Community
                                                                                requirements for a strategy for the reduction of biodegrad-
                                                                                able waste going to landfills, can that provision be
(Appeal — Action seeking annulment — Inadmissibility on                            transposed into national law in the form of measures
    grounds of lateness — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)                          imposing more stringent requirements, in accordance
                                                                                with Article 176 EC, which differ from those set out in
                          (2003/C 101/24)                                          Article 5(2) of the directive (reduction by a specific
                                                                                calendar year of biodegradable municipal waste going to
                    (Language of the case: French)                                 landfills to a specific percentage of the total amount
                                                                                by weight of biodegradable municipal waste) in that
                                                                                municipal waste and waste that can be deposited in the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             same way as municipal waste may be landfilled only if
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  the appropriate ‘organic component of dry residue of the
                                                                                original substance’ classification criterion (expressed as
                                                                                either combustion loss or TOC) is satisfied?
In Case C-176/02 P: Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS, having
its registered office in Grasse (France), represented by J.-
F. Pupel, avocat — Appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                             2.    a)   If so, are the Community requirements laid down in
First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
                                                                                Article 5(2) of the directive to be construed as
of 21 March 2002 in Case T-218/01 Laboratoire Monique
                                                                                meaning that the targets for reduction set out in that
Rémy v Commission [2002] ECR II-2139, seeking to have that
                                                                                provision, namely:
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes)
— The Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas,                           —     75 % of the total amount by weight by 16 July
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                                 2006,
has made an order on 30 January 2003, the operative part of
which is as follows:
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                                          —     50 % of the total amount by weight by 16 July
                                                                                2009, and
2.    The company Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS shall bear the
      costs.
                                                                                —     35 % of the total amount by weight by 16 July
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                                                   2016,
                                                                                are met, having regard to the Community law
                                                                                principle of proportionality, by a national provision
                                                                                under which: the organic content of dry residue of
                                                                                the original substance in the case of municipal waste
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                               and waste that can be deposited in the same way as
icht Koblenz by order of that Court of 4 December 2002                                  municipal waste must, by 1 June 2005, be no more
in the dispute of administrative law between Eiterköpfe                                 than either 5 % by mass, expressed as combustion
                    and Land Rheinland-Pfalz                                            loss, or 3 % by mass, expressed as TOC; from
                                                                                1 March 2001, waste subject to mechanical and
                            (Case C-6/03)                                               biological treatment may be landfilled at existing
                                                                                sites until 15 July 2009 at the latest, or even beyond
                          (2003/C 101/25)                                               that date in certain cases, only if the organic content
                                                                                of dry residue of the original substance is no more
                                                                                than 18 % by mass, expressed as TOC, and the
                                                                                biodegradability of the dry residue of the original
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  substance is no more than 5 mg/g, expressed as
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                                 aerobic activity (AT 4), or 20 l/kg, expressed as the
Koblenz (Administrative Court, Koblenz) of 4 December 2002,                             gas formation rate in the fermentation test (GB 21)?
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 101/15
       b)   Under the Community law principle of pro-                            of a particular trader is that sufficient of itself to prove
            portionality, is the discretion to be exercised in                   that the shape has acquired a distinctive character within
            assessing the impact of overlaying waste that has                    the meaning of Art 3(3) of the Directive?
            not been treated prior to landfill with waste treated
            by thermal or mechanical and biological processes             3.     If that is insufficient, must it also be proved that the shape
            prior to landfill wide or narrow? Does the principle                 is used and relied upon by the relevant public as a
            of proportionality permit hazards caused by waste                    guarantee of trade origin?
            treated prior to landfill by mechanical processes
            alone to be offset by other safeguards?                       4.     If the preponderance of the public recognise a shape
                                                                                mark as the product of one trader but a significant
                                                                                minority also regard other shapes in use by other traders
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1 (Council Directive 1999/31/EC of                as the shape applied for, has the shape mark acquired a
     26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste).                                    ‘distinctive character’ within the meaning of Art 3(3) of
                                                                                the Directive?
                                                                          (1 ) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                               approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
                                                                               marks (OJ L 40 11.2.1989, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
of that court dated 18 December 2002, in the case of
      Société de produits Nestlé SA against Unilever plc
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
                            (Case C-7/03)                                 richt Naumburg by order of that Court of 8 January 2003
                                                                          in the procurement review proceedings, Parties to the
                          (2003/C 101/26)                                 proceedings being 1. The City of Halle, 2. RPL Recy-
                                                                          clingpark Lochau GmbH and 3. The Thermische
                                                                          Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna
                                                                                consortium
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                                                  (Case C-26/03)
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 18 Decem-
ber 2002, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                (2003/C 101/27)
9 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
de produits Nestlé SA and Unilever plc on the following
questions:
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1.     When considering signs which consist of the shape of               European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
       goods, what is meant by ‘the nature of the goods                   Naumburg (Higher Regional Court, Naumburg) of 8 January
       themselves’ in Art 3(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Directive            2003, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for
       89/104 ( 1)? and in particular does that nature arise from:        a preliminary ruling in the procurement review proceedings,
                                                                          Parties to the proceedings being 1. The City of Halle, 2. RPL
       (a)  the specification of goods for which the trade mark           Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH and 3. The Thermische
            is registered (or applied for);                               Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna consor-
                                                                          tium, on the following questions:
       (b) the kind of goods for which the mark is used
            regarded as articles of commerce;                             I.     1.    Does the first sentence of Article 1(1) of Council
                                                                                Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
                                                                                coordination of the laws, regulations and adminis-
       (c)  only the inherent nature of non-man made articles;
                                                                                trative provisions relating to the application of
            or
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts ( 1), as replaced by Article 41
       (d) the shape of the goods which makes the product                              of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
            different in appearance from similar competitive                           relating to the coordination of procedures for the
            products;                                                                  award of public service contracts ( 2), require Member
                                                                                States to ensure that a decision taken by a con-
       (e)  something else, and if so what?                                            tracting authority to award a public contract other-
                                                                                wise than by means of a procedure which complies
2.     Where the shape of a product which has been on the                              with the directives relating to the award of public
       market is merely shown to be recognised by a substantial                        contracts may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly
       proportion of the relevant public as denoting the goods                         as possible?


title: Case C-176/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — KVZ retec GmbH v Republik Österreich (Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Supervision and control of shipments of waste — Meat-and-bone meal)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — KVZ retec GmbH v Republik Österreich
   (Case C-176/05) (1)

   (Waste - Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 - Supervision and control of shipments of waste - Meat-and-bone meal)
   (2007/C 95/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KVZ retec GmbH

      Defendant: Republik Österreich
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(d) and Article 26(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) — Meat-and-bone meal shipments — Obligation to notify
   Operative part of the judgment
   Under Article 1(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2557/2001 of 28 December 2001, the shipment of meat-and-bone meal classified as waste on account of a requirement or intention to discard it, which is destined for recovery only and listed in Annex II to that regulation, is excluded from the scope of the provisions of the regulation except as provided for in Article 1(3)(b) to (e), Article 11 and Article 17(1) to (3) thereof. However, it is for the national court to ensure that that shipment takes place in compliance with the requirements arising from the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003, amongst which those of Articles 7, 8 and 9 and of Annex II to the regulation may prove to be relevant.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case T-7/08: Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle Deluxe)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/56

         Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle Deluxe)
   (Case T-7/08)
   (2008/C 64/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 1 October 2007, Case R 1312/2006-2 (CTM 3 157 534);

               —

               decide that the contested CTM application No 3 157 534 RED MUG device with ‘Golden Eagle Deluxe’ must be rejected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order Master Beverage, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, in case it should become an intervening party in this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Golden Eagle Deluxe’ for goods in class 30 — application No 3 157 534

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks ‘Red Cup’, ‘Gold Blend’ and representations of a cup for, inter alia, coffee

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the conflicting trade marks have a high degree of visual similarity because of an identical arrangement of nine elements present in both the trade mark applied for and in most of the earlier marks, which are inherently distinctive.


title: Case T-277/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iHotel — Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
   (Case T-277/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark iHotel - Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch and D. Hötte, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Promotora Imperial SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2011 (Case R 832/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Promotora Imperial SA and Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-129/06 P: Appeal brought on  4 March 2006  by Autosalone Ispra Snc against the judgment delivered on  30 November 2005  in Case T-250/02 Autosalone Ispra Snc v European Atomic Energy Community

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/9

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2006 by Autosalone Ispra Snc against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2005 in Case T-250/02 Autosalone Ispra Snc v European Atomic Energy Community
   (Case C-129/06 P)
   (2006/C 108/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Autosalone Ispra Snc (represented by: B. Casu, Avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the Commission of the European Communities; Agent: E. de March, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, Avvocato.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the appeal is admissible

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-250/02

               —

               Order that Case T-250/02 be referred back to the Court of First Instance so that, once appropriate measures of inquiry have been made, including those made by the court of its own motion, such as the taking of expert evidence, on the spot checks and the hearing of witnesses, the court may deliver a new judgment granting the forms of order sought by the appellant in its pleadings in the proceedings at first instance

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred at first instance

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is flawed by reason of:

               incorrect legal characterisation of the case as a result of misrepresentation and distortion of the evidence;

               infringement of Community rules of procedure relating to the taking of evidence.


title: Case C-531/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Kornhuber and Others

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Kornhuber and Others
   (Case C-531/13)
   2014/C 15/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen, Heinrich Kornhuber, Helga Kornhuber, Karoline Pöckl, Heinz Kornhuber, Marianne Kornhuber, Wolfgang Kornhuber, Andrea Kornhuber, Alois Herzog, Elfriede Herzog, Katrin Herzog, Stefan Asen, Helmut Zopf, Ingrid Zopf, Silvia Zopf, Daniel Zopf, Maria Zopf, Anton Zopf sen., Paula Loibichler, Theresa Baumann, Josep Schindlauer, Christine Schindlauer, Barbara Schindlauer, Bernhard Schindlauer, Alois Mayrhofer, Daniel Mayrhofer, Georg Rindberger, Maria Rindlberger, Georg Rindlberger sen., Max Herzog, Romana Herzog, Michael Herzog, Markus Herzog, Marianne Herzog, Max Herzog sen., Helmut Lettner, Maria Lettner, Anita Lettner, Alois Lettner sen., Christian Lettner, Sandra Lettner, Anton Nagelseder, Amalie Nagelseder, Josef Nagelseder, Gabriele Schachinger, Thomas Schachinger, Andreas Schinagl, Michaela Schinagl, Lukas Schinagl, Michael Schinagl, Maria Schinagl, Josef Schinagl, Johannn Mayr, Christine Mayr, Martin Mayr, Christian Mayr, Johann Mayr sen., Gerhard Herzog, Anton Mayrhofer, Siegfried Zieher

      Defendant authority: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

      Intervening party: Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the trial extraction of natural gas, for a limited period and in a limited quantity, which is carried out in the context of an exploratory drilling operation designed to establish whether the permanent extraction of natural gas would be economically viable constitute an ‘extraction of … natural gas for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of Annex I, no 14, to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Directive 85/337)? (2)

               If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the following further questions arise:

               2.

               Does Annex I, no 14, to Directive 85/337 preclude a provision of national law which, with regard to the extraction of natural gas, does not relate the threshold figures in Annex I, no 14, to Directive 85/337 to extraction (‘Gewinnung’) as such, but to ‘extraction per probe’ (‘Förderung pro Sonde’)?

               3.

               Is Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which an application is being made for authorisation for the trial extraction of natural gas in the context of an exploratory drilling operation, the authority, in order to determine whether there is an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, must examine, as to their cumulative effect, only all projects of the same kind, specifically, all drilling sites which have been opened in the municipal district?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 114.


title: Case T-203/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (Olymp) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark OLYMP — Earlier national figurative mark OLIMPO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (Olymp)
   (Case T-203/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark OLYMP - Earlier national figurative mark OLIMPO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 186/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Miguel Bellido, SA (Manzanares, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 531/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Miguel Bellido SA and Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/1

         2010/C 301/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

      OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

      OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

      OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

      OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

      OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-481/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Systran v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/27

         Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Systran v Commission
   (Case T-481/13)
   2013/C 336/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Hoss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 5 July 2013 and 21 August 2013 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union;

               —

               order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Commission by which, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2013 in Case C-103/11 P Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg [2013] ECR I-0000, it recovers compensatory interest, plus interest for delay from 19 August 2013, on the amount that the Commission had paid to the applicant by way of damages following the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission [2010] ECR II-6083, annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the Commission's lack of competence to take the contested decisions, in so far as the Commission lacks competence to grant compensatory interest to itself, since such interest may be granted solely by a by a court where the interest is intended to compensate for damage resulting from a party’s failure to carry out its obligations. The applicant claims that the grant of compensatory interest is not part of the realisation of the effects of a judgment of the Court of Justice.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of general principles of European law, both in the light of the grant of interest and the general principle of the prohibition of unjust enrichment. The applicant claims that:

                           —

                           the Commission infringed the general principle of European law, alternatively, the principle common to the Member States relating to the grant of compensatory interest, by granting compensatory interest to itself, in the absence of any harmful event attributable to the applicant;

                           —

                           the Commission infringed the general principle of the prohibition of unjust enrichment by imposing on a legal person governed by private law an obligation not provided for by the Treaties and, in any event, in the light of the calculation of the amount of interest, by granting an amount of flat-rate interest increased by 2 % in respect of inflation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misused its powers, in so far as it may not rely on Article 299 TFEU in order to seek payment of compensatory interest in the absence of a legal basis conferring that power on it and of a judicial decision ordering the applicant to pay it.


title: Case C-126/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic — Czech Republic) — Reisebüro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic — Czech Republic) — Reisebüro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle
   (Case C-126/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/66)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-121/11: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2011 — Versus Bank v Council

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/28

         Order of the General Court of 2 September 2011 — Versus Bank v Council
   (Case T-121/11) (1)

   2011/C 319/59
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-197/17 (OJ C 151, 15.5.2017)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/39

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-197/17
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 151 of 15 May 2017
      )
   (2017/C 213/53)
   The Official Journal notice concerning Case T-197/17, Abel and Others v Commission should read as follows:

      Action brought on 28 March 2017 — Abel and Others v Commission
      (Case T-197/17)
      (2017/C 151/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Marc Abel (Montreuil, France) and 1 428 other applicants (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the European Commission’s conduct to be unlawful;

                  —

                  acknowledge the harm sustained by the applicants as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicants as a result of the adoption of such a regulation and one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the material damage;

                  —

                  issue an injunction to the European Commission obliging it immediately to reduce the ‘final conformity factor’ created by Regulation (EU) 2016/646 back to 1 and to abandon the ‘temporary conformity factor’ fixed at 2,1;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made errors during the adoption of the regulation at issue, in the context of the exercise of the power delegated to it by the European Parliament and the Council by Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ L 171, 2007, p. 1), in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Specifically in question are the following:

                              —

                              infringement of the rules, both primary and secondary, of EU environmental law;

                              —

                              infringement of subsidiary rules of EU law, such as the general principles of standstill, precaution, prevention, rectification at source and polluter-pays;

                              —

                              circumvention of procedural rules, in that the Commission was not entitled to use the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in order to amend an essential aspect of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007;

                              —

                              infringement of essential procedural requirements, in that the regulation at issue did not benefit from the democratic guarantees offered by recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure of joint decision-making by the European Parliament and the Council.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the existence of actual and certain damage and of a direct causal link between the conduct of the Commission and the damage alleged.


title: Case T-568/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2013 — Kokomarina v OHIM — Euro Shoe Group (interdit de me gronder IDMG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark interdit de me gronder IDMG — Earlier Benelux word mark DMG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark disputed for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2013 — Kokomarina v OHIM — Euro Shoe Group (interdit de me gronder IDMG)
   (Case T-568/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark interdit de me gronder IDMG - Earlier Benelux word mark DMG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark disputed for the first time before the General Court)
   2013/C 46/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kokomarina (Concarneau, France) (represented by: C. Charrière-Bournazel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Euro Shoe Group (Beringen, Belgium) (represented by: I. Vernimme, lawyer

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 July 2011 (Case R 1814/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Shoe Unie and Kokomarina

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kokomarina to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-232/11: Action brought on 4 May 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/19

         Action brought on 4 May 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-232/11)
   2011/C 194/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the Commission’s Decision of 1 March 2011 (Ares(2011)223668) contrary to Regulation No 1367/2006/EC (1);

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision of 1 March 2011 (Ares(2011)223668);

               —

               Instruct the Commission to assess the substance of the request for internal review of 20 December 2010, within a period of time determined by the Court;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant was under an obligation to carry out the internal review of Directive 2010/77/EU (2), as requested by the applicants, on the ground that the said directive is not of general application, as the defendant stated, but rather an act containing concrete and individual decisions based on individual applications of the producers concerned.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Regulation No 1367/2006/EC as Directive 2010/77/EU contains several administrative acts concerning individual decisions on individual applications. In addition, since the said directive has not been adopted in Commission’s legislative capacity, access to justice concerning such directive should be guaranteed.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

      (2)  Commission Directive 2010/77/EU of 10 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances (OJ 2010 L 293, p. 48)


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/33

         Removal from the Register of Case T-259/99 (1)

   (2005/C 19/69)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 9 November 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-259/99, Tankstation Jagt B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Case C-182/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2008 — Glaxco Wellcome GmbH & Co v Finanzamt München II

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2008 — Glaxco Wellcome GmbH & Co v Finanzamt München II
   (Case C-182/08)
   (2008/C 197/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Glaxco Wellcome GmbH & Co.

      Defendant: Finanzamt München II
   Question referred
   Do Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) or Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State which, in the framework of a national system of corporation tax credits, excludes the reduction in the value of shares as a result of a profits distribution from the basis of assessment for that tax when a taxpayer who is entitled to a corporation tax credit has acquired shares in a company which is fully taxable from a shareholder who is not entitled to a tax credit, whereas had the acquisition taken place from a shareholder who was entitled to a tax credit such a reduction in value would have reduced the basis of assessment for the tax of the purchaser?


title: Case C-13/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 January 2015 — Cdiscount SA v Ministère public

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 January 2015 — Cdiscount SA v Ministère public
      (Case C-13/15)
      (2015/C 107/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Cdiscount SA

         Respondent: Ministère public

         Question referred

      Do Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) preclude a rule which prohibits, in all circumstances and regardless of the impact they may have on the decision of the average consumer, price reductions which are not calculated against a reference price laid down by regulation?

         (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case C-96/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály (Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Vocational training levy — Basis for calculating the levy to be paid by undertakings established in the national territory — Account taken of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State — Double taxation — Whether it is possible to reduce gross liability to the levy)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály
   (Case C-96/08) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Vocational training levy - Basis for calculating the levy to be paid by undertakings established in the national territory - Account taken of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State - Double taxation - Whether it is possible to reduce gross liability to the levy)
   2010/C 148/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Pest Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft.

      Defendants: Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Pest Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — National rules requiring account to be taken, for the purposes of determining the basis for the vocational training levy of a company established on national territory, of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State, even if the company in question is subject to an equivalent charge, by reason of the employment of those workers, in that other Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude Member State legislation under which an undertaking, which has its seat in that State, is obliged to pay a levy such as the vocational training levy, the amount of which is calculated on the basis of its wage costs including those wage costs incurred at a branch of that undertaking established in another Member State, if, in practice, such an undertaking is prevented, with regard to that branch, from benefiting from the possibilities provided for in that legislation of reducing that levy or from having access to those possibilities.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-111/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2011 by Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2011 in Case T-487/10 Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition v European Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/9

         Appeal brought on 3 March 2011 by Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2011 in Case T-487/10 Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition v European Commission
   (Case C-111/11 P)
   2011/C 319/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition (represented by: M.J. Sánchez González, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 14 July 2011, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case T-211/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/31

         Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-211/17)
   (2017/C 213/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxemburg) (represented by J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               accept the present application as formally correct;

               —

               annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 as to its substance;

               —

               accordingly, cancel the call for tenders No 10651;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs;

               —

               reserve for the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action seeks the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 in so far as it places the applicant in second position in the call for tenders No AO 10651 — Processing of notices for publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ S) (OJ 2016/S 143-258115).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges infringement of the rules and principles of EU law in so far as the Publications Office, by offering to tenderers which were not its contracting partners at the time of the submission the chance to benefit from greater funding in order to finance take-over costs, manifestly infringed the principle of equality. According to the applicant, such an approach, besides being gravely discriminatory, seriously undermines both the raison d’être and the foundations of public procurement procedures.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges misuse of power.


title: Case T-299/11: Action brought on 6 June 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others/OHIM

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/37

         Action brought on 6 June 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others/OHIM
   (Case T-299/11)
   2011/C 232/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the OHIM’s decision to select the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders No AO/021/10 for ‘External service provision for program and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies (PMTC)’ as third contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the applicant by letter dated 28 March 2011, and all the related decisions of OHIM including those to award the respective contract to the first and second cascade contractor;

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of the tendering procedures in question for an amount of 6 500 000 EUR;

               —

               In addition order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of the loss of opportunity and damage in its reputation and credibility for an amount 650 000 EUR;

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002 (1). The applicant submits in particular a violation of the obligation to state reasons by refusing to provide sufficient justification or explanation to the applicant and objects to the non disclosure of the relative merits of the successful tenderers.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the tender specifications by taking into account during the evaluation requirements not mentioned in the tender specifications.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and vague and unsubstantiated comments of the evaluation committee.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a discriminatory treatment of tenderers, non compliance with exclusion criteria of the winning tenderers, a violation of Articles 93(1)(f); 94 and 96 of Regulation No 1605/2002 and of Article 133a and 134b of Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) as well as a violation of the principle of good administration. According to the applicant, the 2nd winning tenderer should have been excluded.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, p. 1).