title: Case T-541/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — New aid — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
   (Case T-541/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 027/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Abertis Telecom, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Retevisión I, SA (Barcelona) (represented by: initially L. Cases Pallarès, J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, then L. Cases Pallarès, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Abertis Telecom, SA and Retevisión I, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-158/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-158/13)
   2013/C 164/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hamidullah Rajaby

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the circumstances of the present dispute, in which there appears to be an evident infringement of European Union law which will continue to have consequences in the future, and in which, in the administrative phase, the parties exchanged views on the applicability of Article 14 of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) which they did not address again during the court proceedings, but on which the applicant also did not expressly rely during the court proceedings, is it contrary to European Union law if the court, by reason of the prohibition in national law on initiating a review of its own motion, does not address that issue?

               2.

               Do the circumstances of the present dispute constitute dependency within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, that is to say, where the family members are a young woman without any education, from Afghanistan, who is accompanied by two children currently of 5½ and 3 years of age who are in her care and in relation to whose care and education she cannot rely on anyone other than her husband and father of the children, and on whose asylum application, moreover, a negative decision has been taken by the defendant because her account was considered to be wholly unbelievable, and that account can be supported by the statements of the applicant and by the (copies of the) documents which he has brought with him?

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


title: Case C-457/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Bergamo by order of that Court of 3 August 2003 in the case brought by Azienda agricola Albergati Giovanni Angelo against Agenzia Erogazioni in agricoltura "AGEA" and Coop. Latte 2005 S.C.A.R.L.

text:
10.1.2004              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 7/23
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                        richt, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen by order
                                                                        of that Court of 27 September 2003 in the case of
                                                                        Parking Brixen G.m.b.H against Municipality of Brixen/
                                                                                Bressanone and Stadtwerke Brixen A.G.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-458/03)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/38)
(1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht,
                                                                        Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen (Administrative
                                                                        Court, Autonomous Division for the Province of Bolzano) of
                                                                        27 September 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        30 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of Parking Brixen G.m.b.H against Municipality of Brixen/
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  Bressanone and Stadtwerke Brixen A.G. on the following
Bergamo by order of that Court of 3 August 2003 in the                  questions:
case brought by Azienda agricola Albergati Giovanni
Angelo against Agenzia Erogazioni in agricoltura ‘AGEA’
                                                                        1.   Does the award of the management of the public pay car
               and Coop. Latte 2005 S.C.A.R.L.
                                                                             parks in question concern a public service contract within
                                                                             the meaning of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) or a public service
                                                                             concession contract to which the competition rules of
                         (Case C-457/03)                                     the EC, in particular the obligation to ensure equal
                                                                             treatment and transparency, must be applied?
                          (2004/C 7/37)
                                                                        2.   If that award does concern a service concession contract
                                                                             relating to the management of a local public service, is
                                                                             the award of the management of public pay car parks
                                                                             which, under Article 44(6)(b) of Regional Law No 1 of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       4 January 1993, as amended by Article 10 of Regional
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bergamo                    Law No 10 of 23 January 1998 and under Article 88(6)(a)
(Bergamo District Court) of 3 August 2003, received at the                   and (b) of the consolidated text of the provisions concern-
Court Registry on 29 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling                  ing local government, can be effected without a public
in the case brought by Azienda agricola Albergati Giovanni                   invitation to tender, compatible with Community law, in
Angelo against Agenzia Erogazioni in agricoltura ‘AGEA’ and                  particular with the principles of freedom to provide
Coop. Latte 2005 S.C.A.R.L. on the following question:                       services and freedom of competition, the prohibition of
                                                                             discrimination, and the resultant obligations to ensure
                                                                             equal treatment, transparency and proportionality, where
                                                                             a public limited company is involved which was set up
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March                 pursuant to Article 115 of Legislative Decree No 267/
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of                     2000 by the conversion of a special undertaking of a
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                          municipality, whose share capital at the time of the award
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of                was held 100 % by the municipality itself but whose
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are                 administrative board enjoys all extensive powers of
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been                   routine administration up to a value of
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?                 EURO 5 000 000,00 per transaction?
(1) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 10.                                       (1) OJ L 209 [1992], p. 1.
(2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.


title: Case C-12/00: Action brought on 14 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 149/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.5.2000
the Rome Bar, and F.M. Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an                  exceptional cases since measures of that kind restrict trade
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,              between Member States. The importer of a food product must
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, appeal against the               be able to choose between maintaining the name under which
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     the product is sold in the Member State of production or
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of                        adopting the name under which similar products are sold in
14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998]                    the Member State of importation (1). Such freedom of choice
ECR II-1439, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             may only be restricted if the product presented under a
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                  particular name is so remote, as regards its composition or
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the                manufacture, from the goods usually known by that name in
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward, President                 the Community that it could not be regarded as falling into
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                        the same category (2).
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,
Registrar: R. Grass, made an order on 9 March 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                      Chocolate containing up to 5 % vegetable fat other than cocoa
                                                                            butter produced in six Member States meets, as far as cocoa-
1. The requests by Sarrió SA that a hearing be held and, in the            related ingredients are concerned, the same composition
    alternative, that it be authorised to lodge a reply are rejected;       requirements as chocolate which contains no vegetable fat, the
                                                                            only difference being the presence of up to 5 % of such
                                                                            substances; it is accepted under the name ‘chocolate’ in almost
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                            all the Member States and it is manufactured under that name
                                                                            in six of them. It is referred to in Directive 73/241/EC itself by
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                  that name. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it
                                                                            cannot be alleged that the presence of such substances
                                                                            significantly alters the nature of the product to such an extent
                                                                            that the name ‘chocolate’ is misleading as to its essential
                                                                            characteristics. As regards consumer protection, the Com-
                                                                            mission considers that the inclusion on the label of a neutral
                                                                            and objective statement which informs consumers of the
                                                                            presence of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter is the best
                                                                            way of ensuring the free circulation of those products in Spain
Action brought on 14 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            whilst at the same time ensuring that Spanish consumers are
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                            protected.
                                 Spain
                            (Case C-12/00)                                  (1) Point 18 of Communication 89/C 271/03 on the free movement
                                                                                of foodstuffs within the Community — OJ 1989 C 271, p. 3.
                           (2000/C 149/20)                                  (2) The conditions under which a Member State may legitimately
                                                                                reject the use of a name liable to mislead consumers are set out in
                                                                                the Commission Communication on trade names of food products
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       — OJ 1991 C 270, p. 2.
Court of Justice on 14 January 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Declare that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products                 Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
    to which vegetable fats other than cocoa butter have been               of the European Communities against the French Republic
    added and which have been lawfully produced in those
    Member States in which the addition thereof is permitted,                                          (Case C-24/00)
    from being marketed in Spain under the name used for
    their marketing in the Member State in which they
    originate, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                                          (2000/C 149/21)
    obligations under Article 28 EC;
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
Pleas and principal arguments                                               and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant seconded
                                                                            to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obligation to change the                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
name under which a product is sold can only be justified in                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-329/05: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission (Arbitration clause — Framework agreement between ECHO and humanitarian organisations — Grant agreements — Suspension of payments)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission
   (Case T-329/05) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Framework agreement between ECHO and humanitarian organisations - Grant agreements - Suspension of payments)
   2012/C 165/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale (Rome, Italy) (represented by: initally P. Vitali, G. Verusio, G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, subsequently P. Vitali, G. Verusio and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and F. Moro, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Principal claim, under Article 238 EC, for the payment of amounts under grant agreements and, in the alternative, annulment of two letters from the Commission dated 17 June and 27 July 2005.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case F-97/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — De Fays v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/45

         Action brought on 24 September 2007 — De Fays v Commission
   (Case F-97/07)
   (2007/C 283/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P.-P. Gehuchten and Ph. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 June 2007 and, so far as necessary, its decision of 21 November 2006;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the salaries suspended, plus default interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official suffering from a sickness which she claims forced her absence from work, challenges the decisions of the appointing authority to treat her successive absences from 19 October 2006 as unauthorised and to therefore apply Article 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) with regard to her.
   The applicant first submits that the arbitration procedure initiated on the basis of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations took place in breach of her right to a fair hearing and the rule of audi alteram partem. What is more, the report of the independent doctor did not give sufficient reasons and was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant also maintains that the decision forcing her to go to the workplace, in the light of current scientific opinion, infringes the principle of taking precautions.


title: Case C-257/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/27

         Action brought on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-257/05)
   (2005/C 217/53)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Wolfgang Bogensberger, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by requiring in Paragraph 21(4) of the Kesselgesetz (Law on boilers) (1) that only applicants having a head office in Austria may be approved as a boiler inspection body, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In accordance with Article 49 EC, limitations on the freedom to provide services, within the Community, of Member State nationals who are established in a different Member State from that of the recipient of the services are prohibited.
   Paragraph 21 of the Republic of Austria's Kesselgesetz governs the requirements for the issue of a licence to operate as a boiler inspection body. Under Paragraph 21(4), only those applicants established in Austria may be licensed as boiler inspection bodies. An inspection body for pressurised equipment established in another Member State, wishing to offer its services in Austria, is therefore faced with the necessity first to establish a branch in Austria.
   That legislation constitutes a limitation on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC. It also follows from the Court's case-law that a requirement of establishment runs directly contrary to the freedom to provide services, since it makes the provision of services through undertakings established in another Member State impossible.
   The grounds stated by the Republic of Austria — such as, for example, public safety or the protection of workers and consumers — are not such as to justify that limitation on the freedom to provide services. A limitation on the freedom to provide services may — according to the Court's case-law — be justified only to the extent that public interest is not already protected by laws to which the service provider is subject in the Member State where it is established. The requirement of establishment is disproportionate for the guarantee of quality of supervision with regard to the interests which it is supposed to protect, since public safety and the protection of workers and consumers may already be ensured by the system laid down in the Kesselgesetz for the authorising and supervision of inspection bodies, without the necessity of an establishment within the Member State.

      (1)  BGBl. No 211/1992.


title: Case T-157/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/25

         Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-157/15)
   (2015/C 190/29)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: Kristi Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (C(2015) 53 final) (1) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91  746,53;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015 (C(2015) 53 final) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91  746,53 for the years 2009 to 2011.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   By the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because the Commission wrongly ascertained and assessed the circumstances which were the basis of the decision and applied EU law incorrectly, leading to the false conclusion that Estonia had endangered EU funds.
   According to the second plea, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and incorrectly applied Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2), in that the contested decision imposed a flat-rate financial correction of 2 % on Estonia.
   According to the third plea, the Commission breached the principle of good administration, as it did not carefully assess and take into account all the evidence put forward by the applicant.
   According to the fourth plea, the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty, as it took the view that the GAEC landscape elements standard should also have been applied and its application continually monitored in 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).


title: Case T-439/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Sport-pari v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/15

         Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Sport-pari v Council
   (Case T-439/11)
   2011/C 290/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sport-pari ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkute Pavan, A. Smaliukas and E. Matulionyte, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward as the main argument the manifest errors of assessment that the contested Council measures are tainted with. It alleges, in particular, that the Council erred in holding that the applicant is (a) controlled by Mr Vladimir Peftiev; (b) an operator of a national lottery; (c) linked to, or associated with the violations of electoral standards and human rights, or the crackdown on civil society in Belarus, or the import to Belarus of the equipment, which might be used for internal repression.
   Furthermore, in support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for inclusion of the applicant in the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the right of defence and the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as:

                           —

                           at no time it provided for the communication of detailed reasons for the inclusion of the applicant in the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures; and

                           —

                           it did not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its’ rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to the benefit of a procedure allowing it to effectively request its removal from the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed fundamental right to property provided for in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in an unjustified and disproportionate manner without compelling evidence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringes the principle of proportionality in that it imposed a disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant without providing adequate procedural guarantees and compelling evidence.


title: Case T-547/13: Action brought on 8 October 2013 Rosian Express v OHIM (Shape of a box)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/34

         Action brought on 8 October 2013 Rosian Express v OHIM (Shape of a box)
   (Case T-547/13)
   2013/C 367/61
   Language of the procedure: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosian Express Srl (Mediaș, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a box, for goods and services in Classes 28 and 35

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-455/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 28 August 2015 — P v Q

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 28 August 2015 — P v Q
   (Case C-455/15)
   (2015/C 346/12)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Varbergs tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P

      Defendant: Q

      Question referred

   Is Varbergs tingsrätt, in accordance with Article 23(a) of the Brussels II Regulation (1) or any provision [thereof] and notwithstanding Article 24 of that regulation, to refuse to recognise the judgment of the Silute District Court of 18 February 2015, see Annex A, and thus to continue to deal with the custody case pending before Varbergs tingsrätt?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 February 1996 in Case T-5/95: Amicale des Résidents du Square d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for annulment - Action for failure to act - Action for damages - Application for directions to be issued to the Commission - Admissibility - No need to give a decision)

text:
No C 108/ 10          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 4 . 96
Currall ) — application for the annulment of the decision of            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Commission of 18 January 1994, inasmuch as it does                                   of 15 February 1996
not reimburse to the applicant the full difference between
the medical expenses incurred by him for a dependent                in Case T-5/95 : Amicale des Résidents du Square
child and the amounts payable under the joint sickness                      d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European
insurance scheme — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth                                      Communitiesf 1 )
Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, and                (Competition — Action for annulment — Action for failure
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung,                to act — Action for damages — Application for directions to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 19 96 , in               be issued to the Commission — Admissibility — No need to
which it :                                                                                give a decision)
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/22 )
1 , dismisses the application -,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                  In Case T- 5/95 : Amicale des Résidents du Square
                                                                    d'Auvergne, established in Massy, France, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Marc Florand, of the Paris Bar, v . Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and
                                                                    Wouter Wils ) — application for ( 1 ) a declaration that the
                                                                    Commission has failed to act and an order directing it to
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            continue its investigation of a complaint; (2 ) the annulment
                      of 12 March 1996                              of the Commission's decisions contained in its letters to the
in Case T-361 /94 : Henry A. Weir v. Commission of the              applicant of 20 September 1994, 5 October 1994 and
                  European Communities ( 1 )                        26 October 1994 , and ( 3 ) an order that the Commission pay
                                                                    ECU 10 million by way of damages — the Court of First
(Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Equality of             Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
treatment — Change in purchasing power — Delay                      President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos , Judges;
in dealing with a matter — Default interest —                       H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 1 5 February 1 996 ,
                         Admissibility)                             in which it orders :
                          96/C 108 /21 )
                                                                    I . there is no need to give a decision on the claim for failure
               (Language of the case: German)                           to act;
In Case T-361 /94 : Henry A. Weir, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                 2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed as
                                                                        inadmissible;
Glasgow ( United Kingdom ), represented by Hans-Josef
Ruber, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue            3 , the parties shall bear their own costs, including the costs
Mathias Hardt, v . Commission of the European                           of the proceedings for interim measures.
Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Bertrand
Wàgenbaur ) — application, first, for the annulment of the          (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
decision of the Commission of 25 February 1994, adopted
pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
the European Communities, alternatively an award of
compensatory interest, and, second, an award of default
interest — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
on 12 March 1996 , in which it:                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 February 1996
 1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible, inasmuch as it      in Case T-235/95 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
     seeks directions to the Commission and an order
                                                                                the European Communities
     requiring the Commission to pay compensatory
     interest;
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/23 )
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                  (Language of the case: English)
     unfounded;
                                                                    In Case T-235/95 R : Anthony Goldstein a medical
3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     practitioner residing in London, represented by Raymond
                                                                    St John Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the
 O OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities ( Agent: Richard Lyal ) —
                                                                    application for an interlocutory order for interim measures
                                                                    — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Criminal conviction — Removal from post with no loss of pension rights — Hearing provided for by the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 44/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               rall) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 14 December 2000 removing the applicant from
                      of 12 December 2002                                  his post with no loss of pension rights — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President,
in Case T-247/01: eCopy Inc v Office for Harmonisation in                  and K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                   trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 December
                                                                           2002, in which it:
(Community trade mark — ECOPY — Misuse of powers —
Distinctiveness acquired through use after the date of filing              1.     Dismissed the application;
         — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                           (2003/C 44/53)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
In Case T-247/01, eCopy Inc, established in Nashua, New
Hampshire (United States), represented by B. Reid, Barrister, v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly): Action brought against
the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designs) of 13 July 2001 (Case R 47/2001-1) relating to
registration of the word ECOPY as a Community trade mark,
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                                        of 28 November 2002
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Pling-
ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           in Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis v Commission
12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           (Officials — Open competition — Application rejected after
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          written tests)
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                                                            (2003/C 44/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis, residing in
                       of 5 December 2002                                  Barcelona, Spain, represented by J. Pujals Gomis, Lawyer,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           L. Lozano Palacios, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, J. Rivas-Andres
in Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens v Commission of the                      and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) — application for annulment of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                               jury’s decision of 28 September 2001 in open competition
                                                                           COM/B/1/01 rejecting the applicant’s application in the com-
(Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Criminal convic-                   petition and refusing to correct his written papers — the Court
tion — Removal from post with no loss of pension rights —                  of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
Hearing provided for by the third paragraph of Article 7 of                President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
               Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)                          Assistant Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 November 2002,
                                                                           in which it:
                           (2003/C 44/54)
                                                                           1.     Dismissed the application;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        (1 ) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
Bertem, Belgium, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,
Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. J. Cur-


title: Case C-477/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin and Others

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin and Others
   (Case C-477/17)
   (2017/C 357/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

      Defendant: D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services B.V.

      Question referred

   Must Article 1 of Regulation No 1231/2010 (1) be interpreted as meaning that third-country nationals, who live outside the European Union, but who work in various Member States on a temporary basis for an employer who is established in the Netherlands, may invoke (Title II of) Regulation No 883/2004 (2) and Regulation No 987/2009 (3)?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2010 L 344, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).


title: Case T-71/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2007 — Enercon v OHIM (Wind turbine) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2007 — Enercon v OHIM (Wind turbine)
   (Case T-71/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 315/70)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Enercon (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 (Case R 179/2005-2) refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark (a section of a wind turbine in the form of an American football) as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108 of 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-63/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail d'Esch-sur-Alzette, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg lodged on 18 February 2008 — Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux S.A.

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail d'Esch-sur-Alzette, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg lodged on 18 February 2008 — Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux S.A.
   (Case C-63/08)
   (2008/C 92/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail d'Esch-sur-Alzette
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Virginie Pontin

      Defendant: T-Comalux S.A.
   Question referred

               1.

               Are Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC (1)) to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from making a legal action brought by a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy subject to time-limits fixed in advance, such as the eight-day period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article [L.] 337(1) of the [Luxembourg] Code du Travail or the fifteen-day period laid down in the fourth subparagraph of that provision?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are the eight- and fifteen-day periods to be regarded as being too short to allow a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy to take legal proceedings to safeguard her rights?

               3.

               Is Article 2 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 (2), to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from denying a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy the right to bring an action for damages for wrongful dismissal, which is reserved, under Articles L. 124-11(1) and (2) of the Code du Travail, to other employees who have been dismissed?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.


title: Case C-203/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Project to set up a common diplomatic representation in Abuja (Nigeria) — Reimbursement of sums owed by the Hellenic Republic — Offsetting against the amount to be paid by the Commission under the Regional Operational Programme for mainland Greece)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-203/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Project to set up a common diplomatic representation in Abuja (Nigeria) - Reimbursement of sums owed by the Hellenic Republic - Offsetting against the amount to be paid by the Commission under the Regional Operational Programme for mainland Greece)
   (2008/C 327/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, S. Trekli and Z. Stavridi, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Zervas and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 January 2007 in Case T-231/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as unfounded an action for annulment of the Commission decision to proceed to recovery by the offsetting of sums owed by Greece following its participation in the Abuja I and II projects to create a common diplomatic mission of the countries of the European Union in Abuja (Nigeria)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-240/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/34

         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-240/05)
   (2005/C 205/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 729/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B490 336 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Coloured three-dimensional mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1.


title: Case T-220/99: Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Joachim Behmer against the European Parliament

text:
8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/25
The applicant states that the defendant is proceeding on the             Action brought on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe against
basis of incorrect facts when it assumes that the applicant’s               the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
contract with Consultban was extended by seven years after
Regulation No 2362/98 entered into force.                                                        (Case T-223/99)
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                                                    (2000/C 6/47)
(2) OJ L 293 of 31.10.1998, p. 33.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe,
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Joachim                           residing at Nivelles (Belgium), represented by Georges Vander-
           Behmer against the European Parliament                        sanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                        (Case T-220/99)                                  SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                          (2000/C 6/46)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the Office on 21 December 1998 unilaterally terminating
                                                                             the applicant’s employment contract;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  — award the applicant, by way of compensation for the
on 30 September 1999 by Joachim Behmer, residing in                          material and non-material damage suffered by him, a sum,
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise                  to be assessed on an equitable basis, amounting to
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 EUR 10 000 and a sum equivalent to the prejudice caused
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               to his career and to the diminution in his pension rights
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              and allowances;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the European Parliament’s decision rejecting the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     application by the applicant for the grade LA 3 post of
     Deputy Head of the German language Translation Division;
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision taken on 21 December
— annul the European Parliament’s decision appointing                    1998 by the President of the defendant organisation providing
     another person to that post;                                        for the early termination of the applicant’s contract of
                                                                         employment, pursuant to Article 5(b) of that contract and the
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 provisions of Article 47(1)(b) of the Conditions of employment
                                                                         of other servants (‘the Conditions’), with effect from 15 Febru-
                                                                         ary 1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         According to the applicant’s account of the facts, that termin-
The applicant, a Grade LA 4 official, contests the appointing            ation constituted the appointing authority’s response to the
authority’s refusal to appoint him to the post of Deputy Head            way in which, at a meeting of a working group, he had hotly
of the German language Translation Division (career bracket:             contested the premature introduction of a software system,
LA 3).                                                                   pointing out certain technical deficiencies which would, in his
                                                                         view, have an adverse effect on the proper execution of
In support of his claims, he pleads infringement of:                     financial transactions and proposing technical steps to mitigate
                                                                         those deficiencies.
— Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
— the principle of equal treatment;                                      Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and of the right to a fair
                                                                         hearing, the commission in the present case of a manifest error
— the principle of career progression.                                   of assessment, the unlawful nature of his dismissal, violation
                                                                         of the right to freedom of expression and of the principle of
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment in the          proportionality, and failure to observe the rules governing
present case, as well as failure by the defendant to comply with         disciplinary proceedings (infringement of Article 50a of the
its obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                        Conditions).


title: Case C-429/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas lodged on 18 September 2014  — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas lodged on 18 September 2014 — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba
   (Case C-429/14)
   2014/C 421/31
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Air Baltic Corporation AS

      Other party to the proceedings: Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 19, 22 and 29 of the Montreal Convention to be understood and interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is liable to third parties, inter alia to the passengers’ employer, a legal person with which a transaction for the international carriage of passengers was entered into, for damage occasioned by a flight’s delay, on account of which the applicant (the employer) incurred additional expenditure connected with the delay (for example, the payment of travel expenses)?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 29 of the Montreal Convention to be understood and interpreted as meaning that those third parties have the right to bring claims against the air carrier on other bases, for example, in reliance upon national law?


title: Case C-38/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Collection and treatment systems — Discharges in sensitive areas — Monitoring methods — Collecting of samples)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-38/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Collection and treatment systems - Discharges in sensitive areas - Monitoring methods - Collecting of samples))
   (2016/C 156/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, E. Manhaeve and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by, failing to provide adequately for the treatment of urban waste water discharged in sensitive areas and deriving from certain agglomerations, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu and, second, Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive, in relation to the agglomerations of Berga, Figueres, El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-299/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/9

         Action brought on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council
   (Case C-299/05)
   (2005/C 243/13)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament and the Council was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Marie-José Jonczy, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the provisions of Annex I, point 2, of Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) relating to headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f);

               2.

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the Commission, by adopting Regulation No 647/05, the legislature accepted the criteria previously laid down by the Court of Justice for the coordination of special and non-contributory benefits. However, the legislature failed to draw all the consequences of those criteria when it included in the list of permitted benefits set out in Annex IIa of Regulation No 1408/71 those under the headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f), which, in the Commission's view, do not satisfy the criteria of ‘special’ benefits within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ L 117, 04.05.2005, p. 1


title: Case C-395/12: Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Edenred Luxembourg SA

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Edenred Luxembourg SA
   (Case C-395/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/52
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case C-566/14 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2014 by Jean-Charles Marchiani against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13 Marchiani v Parliament

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/18

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2014 by Jean-Charles Marchiani against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13 Marchiani v Parliament
   (Case C-566/14 P)
   (2015/C 034/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13 Jean-Charles Marchiani v European Parliament.

      Pleas and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant raises five grounds of appeal.
   Firstly, he believes that the General Court erred in law in refusing to apply to him the texts implementing the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The decision of 4 July 2013 was taken following proceedings which were irregular since they ran counter to the decision of the European Parliament Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 implementing the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. In addition, that decision was adopted, more generally, in breach of the adversarial principle and the principle of respect for the rights of the defence.
   Secondly, the General Court erred in law and vitiated its reasoning by a contradiction in the grounds by referring to the PEAM Rules to validate the contested decision of 4 July 2013. On the one hand, the decision of 4 July 2013 is the result of an incorrect application of the PEAM Rules, repealed in 2009. On the other, the General Court, which initially referred to those PEAM Rules, then abandoned all reference to them in the course of the proceedings, putting forward as the sole legal basis the Financial Regulation of the European Union published in 2012.
   Thirdly, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law by making him alone bear the burden of proof.
   Fourthly, the General Court committed a gross breach of the principle of impartial treatment required of all authorities of the European Union in the exercise of their tasks. The General Court failed entirely to take account of the political functions previously exercised by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, the author of the contested decision.
   Finally, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law by accepting that the decision of 4 July 2013 rules on sums the recovery of which is in any event time-barred. The appellant thus submits that the failure by the General Court to have regard to the rules of limitation led to an infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of Community acts, the principle of legitimate expectations and an infringement of the reasonable time principle.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-143/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-143/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/38)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-143/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Goldmann) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 March 2004 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-279/04: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — French-language publishing — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser — Obligation to state reasons — Fraud — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/20

         Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
   (Case T-279/04) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - French-language publishing - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser - Obligation to state reasons - Fraud - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)
   2010/C 301/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fréget, W. van Weert, I. de Seze, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, lawyers

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Whelan, O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and F. Arbault, then A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: Lagardère SCA (Paris) (represented by: initially A. Winckler and I. Girgenson, then A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, lawyers

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission and Lagardère SCA.

      (1)  OJ C 262, of 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-383/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-383/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental rights)
   2013/C 313/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented: initially by P. Grollet and G. Karouni, and subsequently by G. Karouni and C. Rygaert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), and of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Eyad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-62/14: Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/35

         Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)
   (Case T-62/14)
   2014/C 142/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer, and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

      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 22 November 2013 given in Case R 1091/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HOKEY POKEY’ for ‘confectionery’ in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 275 678

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier, non-registered trade mark ‘HOKEY POKEY’ claimed to be in use in the United Kingdom for ‘confectionery, namely ice cream’

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.


title: Case C-368/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Hüsken and Others v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Hüsken and Others v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH
   (Case C-368/17)
   (2017/C 309/34)
   Language of the Case: German

      Referring Court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hüsken and Others

      Defendant: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 6 July 2017.


title: Case C-527/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2016 — Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse, Bundesminister für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2016 — Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse, Bundesminister für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz
   (Case C-527/16)
   (2017/C 014/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse and Bundesminister für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz

      Interveners: Alpenrind GmbH, Martin-Meat Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft, Martimpex-Meat Kft, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt and Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) which establishes the binding effect of documents within the meaning of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, also apply in proceedings before a court within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           a)

                           Does the aforementioned binding effect also apply where proceedings had previously taken place before the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems and such proceedings did not result either in agreement or in a withdrawal of the contested documents?

                           b)

                           Does the aforementioned binding effect also apply where an ‘A 1’ document is not issued until after the receiving Member State has formally determined that insurance is compulsory under its legislation? Does the binding effect also apply retroactively in such cases?

               3.

               In the event that, under certain conditions, the binding effect of documents within the meaning of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 is limited:
               Does it contravene the prohibition on replacement set forth in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 if the replacement occurs not in the form of a posting by the same employer but instead by another employer? Does it matter whether

                           a)

                           the second employer has its registered office in the same Member State as the first employer, and

                           b)

                           the first and the second posting employer share staffing and/or organisational resources?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 284, p. 1.


title: Case C-177/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Article 3(2)(b) — Margin of discretion of the Member States)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis
   (Case C-177/11) (1)

   (Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(2)(b) - Margin of discretion of the Member States)
   2012/C 250/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

      Defendants: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) and Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Condition, for carrying out an assessment of the environmental effects of a given plan or programme, that it may have significant effects on a special area of conservation — Discretion of the Member States

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, including the condition that the plan may have a significant effect on the site concerned, being met in respect of that plan. The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-333/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/92/EC — Protection of workers — Exposure to risk of explosive atmospheres — Failure to transpose)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-333/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/92/EC - Protection of workers - Exposure to risk of explosive atmospheres - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 31/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-333/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 August 2004 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of Chamber (Judge Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-549/16: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Papathanasiou v EUIPO

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/32

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Papathanasiou v EUIPO
   (Case T-549/16) (1)

   (2017/C 357/42)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-64/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-347/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria)) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Motor accident — Statutory assignment of the rights of an injured party in favour of a social security institution — Action for recovery against the insurer of a person allegedly liable — Objective of protecting the weaker party)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/22

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria)) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG
   (Case C-347/08) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Motor accident - Statutory assignment of the rights of an injured party in favour of a social security institution - Action for recovery against the insurer of a person allegedly liable - Objective of protecting the weaker party)
   2009/C 267/38
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Feldkirch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse

      Defendant: WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Feldkirch — Interpretation of Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Action brought under statutory subrogation by a social security institution before the court for the place where that institution is established against an insurer established in another Member State.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, acting as the statutory assignee of the rights of the directly injured party in a motor accident, may not bring an action directly in the courts of its Member State of establishment against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible for the accident, where that insurer is established in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-125/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Denmark) — VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting on behalf of Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S (Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Requirement to reorganise the distribution network — Period of notice — Statement of reasons — Burden of proof)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Denmark) — VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting on behalf of Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S
   (Case C-125/05) (1)

   (Competition - Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles - Block exemption - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 - Article 5(3) - Termination by the supplier - Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 - Requirement to reorganise the distribution network - Period of notice - Statement of reasons - Burden of proof)
   (2006/C 261/08)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting on behalf of Vulcan Silkeborg A/S

      Defendant: Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 25) — Termination of the agreement by the supplier in a case where it is necessary to reorganise the whole or a substantial part of the network — Obligation to state reasons and extent of such an obligation
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court rules:
   The first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements is to be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               in order for it to be ‘necessary to reorganise the whole or a substantial part of the network’ there must be a significant change, both substantively and geographically, to the distribution structures of the supplier concerned, which must be convincingly justified on grounds of economic effectiveness based on objective circumstances internal or external to the supplier's undertaking which, failing a swift reorganisation of the distribution network, would be liable, having regard to the competitive environment in which the supplier carries on business, to prejudice the effectiveness of the existing structures of the network. Any adverse economic consequences which would be liable to affect a supplier in the event that it were to terminate the distribution agreement with a two years' notice period are relevant in that regard. It is for the national courts and arbitrators to determine, having regard to all the evidence in the case before them, whether those conditions are satisfied.

               —

               where the validity of a termination with one year's notice is challenged before the national courts or arbitrators, it is for the supplier to prove that the conditions laid down under that provision for the exercise of the right to terminate on one year's notice are satisfied. The procedure for establishing such proof is a matter for national law.

               —

               it does not require a supplier which terminates a distribution agreement pursuant to that provision to provide a formal statement of the reasons for the decision to terminate nor does it require the supplier to draw up a reorganisation plan prior to taking such a decision.

               —

               the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 1475/95. However, that entry into force may, in the light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have required changes that were so significant that they must be truly considered as representing a reorganisation within the meaning of that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before them, whether that is the position.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.