title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 February 1998 in Case T-94/95: Jean-Pierre Landuyt v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Compensation payable to milk producers - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Offer of compensation - Acts of national authorities - Control - Competence - Action for damages - Admissibility)

text:
28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/19
2. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          3. orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
3. orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 90, 26.3.1994.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 4 February 1998
                                                                   in Case T-94/95: Jean-Pierre Landuyt v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   (Action for annulment Ð Compensation payable to milk
                     of 4 February 1998                            producers Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 Ð Offer of
                                                                   compensation Ð Acts of national authorities Ð Control
in Case T-93/95: Bernard Laga v. Commission of the                   Ð Competence Ð Action for damages Ð Admissibility)
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/50)
(Action for annulment Ð Compensation payable to milk
producers Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 Ð Offer of
compensation Ð Acts of national authorities Ð Control                             (Language of the case: French)
  Ð Competence Ð Action for damages Ð Admissibility)
                        (98/C 94/49)
                                                                   In Case T-94/95: Jean-Pierre Landuyt, residing at Grisolles
                                                                   (France), represented by Jean-FrancËois Le Petit, of the
                                                                   Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard
                                                                   Rozet), supported by French Republic (Agents: initially
                                                                   Catherine de Salins and FreÂdeÂric Pascal, subsequently
                                                                   Kareen Rispail-Bellanger and Mr Pascal) Ð application,
In Case T-93/95: Bernard Laga, residing at Grisolles               first, for annulment of the decision of the Office National
(France), represented by Jean-FrancËois Le Petit, of the           Interprofessionnel du Lait et des Produits Laitiers of
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            20 January 1995 finding the applicant ineligible for
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against                  compensation under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard             93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation
Rozet), supported by French Republic (Agents: initially            to certain producers of milk and milk products
Catherine de Salins and FreÂdeÂric Pascal, subsequently            temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ
Kareen Rispail-Bellanger and Mr Pascal) Ð application,             L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6) and, second, for an order requiring
first, for annulment of the decision of the Office National        the Commission to make good the loss suffered as a result
Interprofessionnel du Lait et des Produits Laitiers of             of that decision Ð the Court of First Instance (First
20 January 1995 finding the applicant ineligible for               Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
compensation under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/               R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
to certain producers of milk and milk products                     4 February 1998, in which it:
temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ
L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6) and, second, for an order requiring
the Commission to make good the loss suffered as a result
of that decision Ð the Court of First Instance (First              1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          2. orders the applicant to pay the costs;
4 February 1998, in which it:
                                                                   3. orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs;


title: Case T-461/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Spain 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 — Concept of undertaking — Economic activity — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Distortion of competition — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Duty of diligence — Reasonable period — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Subsidiarity — Right to information)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-461/13) (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 - Concept of undertaking - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Duty of diligence - Reasonable period - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Subsidiarity - Right to information))
   (2016/C 027/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, lawyer)

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

      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 the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs incurred in the main proceedings and those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case F-105/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Knöll v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant an indeterminate contract — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Knöll v Europol
   (Case F-105/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant an indeterminate contract - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment)
   2013/C 377/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to comply with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a fixed sum to compensate her for the harm caused to her by the decision annulled by that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted to Ms Knöll the sum of EUR 20 000 in order to comply with the Tribunal’s judgment of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol;

               2.

               Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Knöll.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 70.


title: Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon — Greece) — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-472/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-473/06), Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06) v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE (Article 82 EC — Abuse of dominant position — Pharmaceutical products — Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports — Ordinary orders)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon — Greece) — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-472/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-473/06), Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06) v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE
   (Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06) (1)

   (Article 82 EC - Abuse of dominant position - Pharmaceutical products - Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports - Ordinary orders)
   (2008/C 301/11)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-472/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-473/06), Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06)

      Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Efetio Athinon — Interpretation of Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position — Refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully orders placed by pharmaceutical wholesalers, with the intention of limiting their export activity and, consequently, the harm caused to it by parallel trade
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking occupying a dominant position on the relevant market for medicinal products which, in order to put a stop to parallel exports carried out by certain wholesalers from one Member State to other Member States, refuses to meet ordinary orders from those wholesalers, is abusing its dominant position. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the orders are ordinary in the light of both the size of those orders in relation to the requirements of the market in the first Member State and the previous business relations between that undertaking and the wholesalers concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case C-326/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Users’ rights — Right of subscribers to terminate their contract without penalty — Changes to charges under terms of the contract — Increase in charges in line with increase in the consumer price index)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG
   (Case C-326/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Users’ rights - Right of subscribers to terminate their contract without penalty - Changes to charges under terms of the contract - Increase in charges in line with increase in the consumer price index))
   (2016/C 038/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Defendant: A1 Telekom Austria AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 20(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a change in charges for the provision of electronic communications networks or services, resulting from the operation of a price adjustment clause contained in the standard terms and conditions applied by an undertaking providing such services, the term providing that such a change applies in accordance with changes in an objective consumer price index compiled by a public institution, does not constitute a ‘modification to the contractual conditions’ within the meaning of that provision, which grants the subscriber the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case F-52/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2010 — Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2010 — Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union
   (Case F-52/10) (1)

   2011/C 46/32
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010, p. 61.


title: Case C-297/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-297/17)
   (2017/C 309/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ibrahim Bashar

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?
               In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible?

               2.

               Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where

                           a)

                           the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or

                           b)

                           the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,

                                       —

                                       infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or

                                       —

                                       does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR?

               4.

               If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State?

               5.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

                           a)

                           Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself?

                           b)

                           Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement?

      (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).


title: Case C-414/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 8 August 2011 — Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 8 August 2011 — Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon
   (Case C-414/11)
   2011/C 298/30
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Plaintiffs: Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement setting out the framework for patent protection fall within a field for which the Member States continue to have primary competence and, if so, can the Member States themselves accord direct effect to that provision, and can the national court apply it directly subject to the requirements laid down by national law?

               2.

               Under Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement are chemical and pharmaceutical products patentable subject matter provided that they satisfy the requirements for the grant of patents and, if so, what is the scope of their protection?

               3.

               Under Articles 27 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement, do patents covered by the reservation in Article 167(2) of the 1973 Munich Convention which were granted before 7 February 1992, that is to say, before the above agreement entered into force, and concerned the invention of pharmaceutical products, but which, because of the aforementioned reservation, were granted solely to protect their production process, fall within the protection for all patents pursuant to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and, if so, what is the extent and content of that protection, that is to say, have the pharmaceutical products themselves also been protected since the above agreement entered into force or does protection continue to apply to their production process only or must a distinction be made based on the content of the application for grant of a patent, that is to say, as to whether, by describing the invention and the relevant claims, protection was sought at the outset for the product or the production process or both?


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/45

         Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-22/04)
   (2004/C 94/127)
   Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure language in which the case was submitted: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2004 by Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH, Hamburg, Germany, represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer.
   Bluenet Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare non-conformity with section 8.1.b) of the EC Regulation 40/94 concerning the Community trade mark of the Decision of 17 November 2003 issued by the Second Appeals Chamber of the OHIM by which the appeal lodged by Bluenet Limited against Decision No 106/2002 of 25 January 2002 was upheld, with the consequent dismissal of the opposition proceeding B 279 358 brought against the community trade mark application No 1 169 085, Westlife, in classes 9, 16, 25 and 41;

               —

               declare the confusing nature of Community trade mark application number 1,169,085, Westlife, classes 9, 16, 25 and 41 with German trade mark No 397 43 603, West, that protects identical products and services of the same classes, 9, 16, 25 and 41;

               —

               instruct payment of the costs of the proceeding to the defendant party.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for the Community trade mark:

               Bluenet Ltd.

               The Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark ‘Westlife’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25 and 41 (Sound storage media, image storage media and data storage media; printed matter; clothing; entertainment services provided by a musical band,...) (Application No 1169085)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the

               Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The international and national word mark ‘West’ for goods and services in classes 1 to 13, 15 to 31 and 35 to 41 (apparatus for recording; printed matter; clothing; education and entertainment;...)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the application for registration of the word mark ‘Westlife’ for the contested goods and services

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the contested decision insofar as it upheld the opposition of Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)

      (1)   Regolamento (CE) del Consiglio 20 dicembre 1993, n. 40/94, sul marchio comunitario (GU L 11, pag. 1).


title: Case T-552/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — North Drilling v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — North Drilling v Council
   (Case T-552/12 R)
   (Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 141/33
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay in the enforcement, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as the applicant’s name was entered in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-92/11 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 –Andersen v Commission (State aid — Rail transport — Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) — Public service contracts for the supply of rail passenger transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to certain conditions — Temporal application of rules of substantive law — Service of general economic interest — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 –Andersen v Commission
   (Case T-92/11 RENV) (1)

   ((State aid - Rail transport - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) - Public service contracts for the supply of rail passenger transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to certain conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law - Service of general economic interest - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 086/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and M.-I. Rantou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, lawyer) and Danske Statsbaner (DSB), (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Dansk Tog (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Rivas Andrés and F. Nissen Morten, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (State aid C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (State aid C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) in so far as it concerns the payment of 21 December 2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Mr Jørgen Andersen, the European Commission, Dansk Tog, the Kingdom of Denmark and Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-623/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Loewe Technologies v OHIM — DNS International (SoundVision)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/27

         Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Loewe Technologies v OHIM — DNS International (SoundVision)
   (Case T-623/14)
   2014/C 351/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Loewe Technologies GmbH (Kronach, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DNS International Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2014 given in Case R 1625/2013-2.

      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 figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘SoundVision’ for goods in Classes 9, 15 and 20 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 05  519

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘LOEWE SOUNDVISION’ — CTM No 5 7 98  228

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and allowed for registration of the contested CTM

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-417/04 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2004 by Regione Siciliana against the order made on 8 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-341/02 Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/30

         Appeal brought on 29 September 2004 by Regione Siciliana against the order made on 8 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-341/02 Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-417/04 P)
   (2004/C 300/56)
   An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2004 by Regione Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato, against the order made on 8 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-341/02 Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of 8 July 2004 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The appellant submits that the order under appeal is defective on the following grounds:

               —

               paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of the order state clearly that its legal basis is provided by Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which provides that ‘the Court of First Instance may at any time, of its own motion, consider whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with an action …’ No ‘absolute bar’ is evident from the material in the case in hand such as to justify the Court of First Instance declaring of its own motion that the action was inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance made no effort whatever to explain what might constitute this ‘absolute bar’ capable of bringing into operation the procedure set out in Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure. The complete lack of reasons in this regard constitutes a very serious infringement of the fundamental rights of defence and of the audi alteram partem principle;

               —

               breach and improper application of Article 230 EC with regard to the entitlement of Regione Siciliana to bring a challenge and, consequently, breach of the fundamental rights of defence;

               —

               breach and improper application of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988, (1) as subsequently amended;

               —

               breach of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 18 December 1988; (2)

               —

               defective statement of reasons by virtue of inconsistency and arbitrariness;

               —

               defective statement of reasons by virtue of inherent contradiction, lack of logic and absence of grounds.

      (1)  OJ L 185 of 15.07.1988, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1.


title: Case C-275/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — External Community transit — TIR Carnets — Customs duties — Own resources of the Communities — Making available — Time-limits — Default interest — Accounting rules)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-275/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - External Community transit - TIR Carnets - Customs duties - Own resources of the Communities - Making available - Time-limits - Default interest - Accounting rules)
   2009/C 113/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms, M. Velardo and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and G. Albenzio, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 8 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and Article 6(2)(a) thereof, replaced as from 30 May 2000 by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p.1) — Accounting rules — Default interest due for late payment of own resources

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case C-291/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
6.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     impact assessment being carried out, it appears when
                                                                                approval of reserved matters is sought that the project
Annul or vary Commission Decision C(2003) 1539 in connec-                       may have significant effects on the environment by virtue
tion with the exclusion from Community financing of certain                     inter alia of its nature, size or location (article 2(1) of the
expenditure by the Member States in the context of the EAGGF                    Directive)?
— Guarantee section, in regard to the chapter concerning
financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the            (3) In circumstances where:
sector of arable cultivation for the financial years 2000 and
2001.
                                                                                (a)   national planning law provides for the grant of
                                                                                outline planning permission at an initial stage of the
                                                                                planning process and requires consideration by the
                                                                                competent authority at that stage as to whether an
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                environmental impact assessment is required for
                                                                                purposes of the Directive; and
—     Misinterpretation of provisions;
—     Misappraisal of factual circumstances;                                    (b) the competent authority then determines that it is
                                                                                unnecessary to carry out an environmental impact
                                                                                assessment and grants outline planning permission
—     Defective statement of reasons;
                                                                                subject to conditions reserving specified matters for
                                                                                later approval; and
—     Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c)
      of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 in conjunction with
      Document VI/5330/97;                                                      (c)   that decision can then be challenged in the national
                                                                                courts;
—     Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 6 and 7
      of Regulation No 3508/92.                                                 may national law, consistently with the Directive, pre-
                                                                                clude a competent authority from requiring that an
                                                                                environmental impact assessment be carried out at a later
                                                                                stage of the planning process?
                                                                         (1 ) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
                                                                              of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                      environment (OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40).
by order of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of
Regina against London Borough of Bromley, ex parte
                       Diane Barker (FC)
                        (Case C-290/03)
                        (2003/C 213/29)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                         Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
                                                                         that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 30 June 2003, which was received at the Court Registry
on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina                                      (Case C-291/03)
and London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Diane Barker (FC)
on the following questions:
                                                                                (2003/C 213/30)
(1) Is identification of ‘the decision of the competent auth-
      ority or authorities which entitles the developer to
      proceed with the project’ (article 1(2) of Directive 85/
      337/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)) exclusively a matter for the
      national court applying national law?                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
(2) Does the Directive require an environmental impact                   Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 30 June 2003,
      assessment to be carried out if, following the grant of            which was received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a
      outline planning permission subject to conditions that             preliminary ruling in the case of MyTravel plc and Com-
      reserved matters be approved, without an environmental             missioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/18                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
On a correct interpretation of article 26 of the Sixth Direc-               by the tour operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in
tive ( 1) on value added tax and of the judgment of the Court of            question or (b) the average revenue achieved by the tour
Justice in Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin                   operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in question?
[1998] ECR I-6229:
                                                                            (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
I.     In what, if any, circumstances is it open to a tour                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
       operator, which has completed its value added tax return                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
       for a financial year using the actual cost method which                   basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
       was the only method laid down in national legislation
       implementing the Directive, subsequently to recalculate
       its VAT liability partly in accordance with the market
       value method described in paragraph 46 of that judg-
       ment?
       (1) In particular may such a tour operator use the
             market value selectively in relation to different              Action brought on 4 July 2003 by the Commission of the
             financial years, and if so, in what circumstances?               European Communities against the Republic of Finland
       (2) In a case where the tour operator sells some of the                                          (Case C-292/03)
             in-house components of its packages to the public
             on a non-package basis (in this case flights) but does
             not sell other in-house components of some of its                                          (2003/C 213/31)
             packages to the public on a non-package basis
             (in this case cruises and campsites) can the tour
             operator:
                                                                            An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
             (a)   use the market value method in relation to               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July
                   those packages (being the vast majority) where           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                   it can determine the value of all its in-house           represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto, with an address
                   supplies (in this case flights) by reference to          for service in Luxembourg.
                   sales it has made to the public on a non-
                   package basis;
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
             (b)   in cases where the package includes in-house
                   elements which the tour operator does not sell           1.     Declare under Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the
                   to the public on a non-package basis (in this                   European Union that, by failing to adopt the laws,
                   case camp sites and cruises), can the tour                      regulations and administrative measures to comply with
                   operator use the market value method to                         Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and
                   determine the value of those in-house supplies                  of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life
                   that it does sell to the public (in this case the               vehicles (1) or in any event in failing to inform the
                   flights) where it has not been possible to                      Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed
                   establish a market value for other parts of the                 to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                   package.
                                                                            2.     Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
       (3) Must the use of the combination of methods be
             (a) simpler or (b) significantly simpler or (c) not
             significantly more complicated
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
       (4) Must the market value method produce the same,
             or a very similar, VAT liability as does the cost-
             based method?                                                  The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                                                                            21 April 2002.
Is it possible in the circumstances of the present case to                  (1 ) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
identify that part of the in-house service relating to flights sold
as part of a holiday package by taking either (a) the average
cost of an airline seat increased by the average margin achieved


title: Case T-432/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — VTZ and Others v Council

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/38

         Action brought on 26 September 2012 — VTZ and Others v Council
   (Case T-432/12)
   2012/C 366/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, as far as the applicants are concerned, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 of 26 June 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia (OJ 2012 L 174, p. 5); and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by cumulating imports from Russia with imports from Ukraine, the Council manifestly erred in the appraisal of the facts, violated Article 3(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) and infringed the principle of equal treatment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by concluding that the repeal of the measures is likely to lead to injury recurring the Council infringed the principle of equal treatment and manifestly erred in the appraisal of facts and, therefore, infringed Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation and the principle of equal treatment by committing a manifest error of assessment as concerns the analysis of the Union interest.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ rights of defence by failing to examine the arguments raised by the applicants during the investigation and to provide the applicants with the disclosure of essential facts and considerations concerning the case, the duty to state reasons and the principle of sound administration and the rights of defence of the applicants by providing the Member States with information on the case prior to receiving any comments from the applicants and by consulting the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee before the applicants had been heard.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L343, p. 51), as amended.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-112/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble Société financière et industrielle du Peloux v Axa Belgium and Others (Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in respect of contracts of insurance — Agreement conferring jurisdiction between a policy-holder and an insurer both domiciled in the same Contracting State — Enforceability of a jurisdiction clause against an insured who did not approve that clause — Insured domiciled in another Contracting State)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-112/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble Société financière et industrielle du Peloux v Axa Belgium and Others (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Jurisdiction in respect of contracts of insurance - Agreement conferring jurisdiction between a policy-holder and an insurer both domiciled in the same Contracting State - Enforceability of a jurisdiction clause against an insured who did not approve that clause - Insured domiciled in another Contracting State)
   (2005/C 182/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-112/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, from the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble (France), made by decision of 20 February 2003, received at the Court on 13 March 2003, in the proceedings between Société financière et industrielle du Peloux and Axa Belgium and Others, Gerling Konzern Belgique SA, Établissements Bernard Laiterie du Chatelard, Calland Réalisations SARL, Joseph Calland, Maurice Picard, Abeille Assurances Cie, Mutuelles du Mans SA, SMABTP, Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Zurich International France SA — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   A jurisdiction clause conforming with Article 12(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, cannot be relied on against a beneficiary under that contract who has not expressly subscribed to that clause and is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the policy-holder and the insurer.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: Case T-5/02: Action brought on 15 January 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.3.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/19
Action brought on 15 January 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.                     —    any ‘leveraging’ deriving from the merger — assuming it
  against the Commission of the European Communities                           could be established — would in any event not lead to
                                                                               any market foreclosure of competitors;
                           (Case T-5/02)
                                                                          —    the Commission is wrong to be concerned about the
                                                                               possibility that Tetra Laval, as a result of the merger,
                          (2002/C 68/33)                                       would ‘strengthen its current dominant position in carton
                                                                               packaging by eliminating a source of significant competi-
                    (Language of the case: English)                            tive constraint’, as this ignores the presence of strong
                                                                               competitors in the PET equipment market and the
                                                                               acknowledged lack of dominance of Sidel, as well as the
                                                                               anticipated dynamics of the development of PET;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —    the Commission failed to show that the merger could
European Communities on 15 January 2002 by Tetra Laval                         lead to any strengthening of a dominant position resulting
B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and                           from the merged entity’s ‘future dominant position in
Mr Denis Waelbroeck, of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing Hou-                        two closely neighbouring markets’;
thoff, and Mr Andreas Weitbrecht et Mr Sven Völcker of
Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, Brussels (Belgium).                            —    the Commission’s objections failed to consider alternative
                                                                               packaging materials such as high density polyethylene
                                                                               (HDPE) bottles, glass and cans; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —    the Commission failed to demonstrate why the remedies
—     grant the applicant the benefit of an expedited procedure;               offered by the applicant (the divestiture of its stretch blow
                                                                               moulding — SBM — machines and PET preform business,
                                                                               keeping Sidel separate from the Tetra Pak companies for a
—     declare the present application admissible and well-                     period of ten years following the Commission’s clearance
      founded;                                                                 decision, and the granting of a licence of Sidel’s SBM
                                                                               business for sale to customers filling ‘sensitive’ products
—     annul the contested decision in its entirety;                            and for sales to converters) did not eliminate the concerns
                                                                               identified by it.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, an undertaking incorporated            Action brought on 22 January 2002 by adidas Inter-
under the laws of the Netherlands, challenges the Commission              national B.V., Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boeren-
decision which declared a concentration to be incompatible                leenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), DSM Finance B.V.,
with the common market in the Tetra Laval/Sidel case (Case                DTG Finance B.V., Heineken N.V., ING Verzekeringen
No COMP/M.2416). This concentration aims to bring together                N.V., Koninklijke Ahold N.V., Landis Group International
two companies, one, the applicant, active primarily in carton             B.V., Unilever N.V. and Wolters Kluwer N.V. against the
packaging, and the other, Sidel, mainly active in PET (polyester)                 Commission of the European Communities
packaging equipment. According to the applicant, since neither
of the parties is active in the other’s market, the proposed
merger raises no horizontal concerns. Nor does the proposed                                        (Case T-9/02)
merger raise any vertical concerns. It therefore merely raises
potential conglomerate effects.
                                                                                (2002/C 68/34)
In support of its arguments, the applicant submits that:                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     the Commission failed to give full access to the file;
—     it is not established that Tetra Laval will, as a result of the     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      merger, be able to ‘leverage’ its position from the carton          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      market into the PET equipment market;                               European Communities on 22 January 2002 by adidas Inter-


title: Case T-584/08: Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/44

         Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission
   (Case T-584/08)
   (2009/C 55/79)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA (represented by: A. Abate, lawyer, R. Longanese Cattani, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the European Commission on 21 October 2008 on State aid from Italy No C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008).

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 172, p. 1) is based on Article 87(3)(e) EC and introduced a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding, with the aim of restoring the market conditions distorted by the anti-competitive practices of the Korean shipyards. The expiry of the regulation, initially set for 31 March 2004, was subsequently postponed for one year, thus allowing Community shipyards until 31 March 2005 (the new expiry date of the regulation) to conclude further contracts for building certain types of cargo vessel. In support of those contracts, the regulation provides for aid of up to 6 % of the contract value. The applicant is party to five contracts for the construction of chemical vessels.
   In order to finance all of the contracts during the period from 2002 to 2005, Italy notified two financing packages of EUR 10 million each. The Commission authorised the first by decision of 19 May 2004 but refused, by the contested decision, to authorise the second financing package. The Commission maintains that the additional financing constitutes ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1) in that it represents more than 20 % of the original budget of the scheme. The Commission further argues that the additional financing is incompatible with the common market in that the notification was made after 31 March 2005, the date on which Regulation No 1177/2002 expired.
   The applicant submits that it was not possible for the Italian Government to prepare the financing for the contracts by 31 March 2005, since it was not in a position to have knowledge of all the contracts concerned: that being the last day of application of the regulation, the undertakings had the right to conclude contracts up to and on that day.
   The applicant accordingly puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its action to contest the decision, in particular:

               —

               infringement of Regulation No 1177/2002 in the light of the specific aims of the legislature in relation to Article 87(3)(e) EC;

               —

               infringement of Article 4(2)(a) of Commission Regulation No 794/2004 in so far as the additional financing of EUR 10 million has been categorised as ‘new aid’;

               —

               irrelevance of the recommendation of 20 June 2005 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in respect of the shipbuilding contracts lawfully concluded under Regulation No 1177/2002;

               —

               failure to state reasons to substantiate the allegation that there is no legal basis for authorising the additional financing;

               —

               breach of the principles of good administration, the right to a fair hearing, the rights of the defence, equal treatment, subsidiarity and proportionality.


title: Case C-450/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln (Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Taxation of income from the letting of immovable property — Deductibility of annuities paid to a relative in the context of an anticipated succession inter vivos — Condition of being subject to unlimited tax liability in the Member State at issue)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln
   (Case C-450/09) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of income from the letting of immovable property - Deductibility of annuities paid to a relative in the context of an anticipated succession inter vivos - Condition of being subject to unlimited tax liability in the Member State at issue)
   2011/C 152/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulrich Schröder

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hameln

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 56 EC — Taxation on income deriving from the leasing or letting of immovable property — Legislation of a Member State making the possibility of deducting the allowances paid to the former owner of those properties in the context of anticipatory succession subject to the condition of being wholly liable to tax in that state

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while allowing a resident taxpayer to deduct the annuities paid to a relative who transferred to him immovable property situated in the territory of that State from the rental income derived from that property, does not grant such a deduction to a non-resident taxpayer, in so far as the undertaking to pay those annuities results from the transfer of that property.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-129/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
      (Case C-129/16)
      (2016/C 211/32)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft.

         Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directive 2004/35/EC (1) on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage preclude a provision of national law which — going beyond the ‘polluter pays’ principle — permits the environmental protection agency to hold specifically the owner of the property liable to pay compensation for the environmental damage caused, without it first being necessary to determine whether there is a causal link between the conduct of that person (a commercial undertaking) and the pollution caused?

                  2.

                  If the first question is to be answered in the negative and, with regard to the air pollution it is not necessary to remedy the environmental damage, may a fine aimed at protecting air quality be imposed on the basis of legislation of the Member State which is more stringent than Article 16 of Directive 2004/35/EC and Article 193 TFEU, or can that more stringent legislation not, at any rate, result in the imposition of a fine which is solely punitive in nature on the owner of the property, which is not responsible for the pollution caused?

         (1)  Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).


title: Case T-122/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/35
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Royal Philips                                principles of proper administration, in that it has referred
Electronics N.V. against the Commission of the European                         the case to the French authorities with regard to the
                          Communities                                           impact of the acquisition on the French market, instead
                                                                                of dealing with the case in full itself.
                         (Case T-119/02)
                                                                          (1) OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13.
                         (2002/C 169/62)                                  (2) Not yet published in the OJ.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Royal Philips                    Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Mitsubishi HiTec
Electronics N.V., represented by Mr E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and            Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Commission of the
Ms N. Cronstedt of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The                                         European Communities
Hague (The Netherlands).
                                                                                (Case T-122/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (2002/C 169/63)
—     annul the Approval Decision and the Referral Decision;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Mitsubishi HiTec
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Paper Bielefeld GmbH, represented by Mr Andrzej W.J. Kmiecik
                                                                          and Mr Ivo Van Bael of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant in the present case, a Dutch company active in
the areas of lighting, consumer electronics, electrical household         The applicant claims that the Court should:
appliances, components, semiconductors and medical systems,
seeks the annulment of two Decisions by the Commission of
8 January 2002 in case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex,                        —     annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it alleges that
regarding the acquisition by Group SEB of the small electrical                  the applicant was involved in an infringement before
appliances business of SA Moulinex under, respectively,                         1 January 1993;
Article 9(3) (the referral Decision) and Article 6(1)(b) and
(2) (the approval Decision) of Regulation No 4064/89, of                  —     reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant;
21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between
undertakings (1). The same merger procedure is also the subject
of Case T-114/02 Babyliss/Commission (2).                                 —     order the Commission to bear the costs.
In support of its pleas, the applicant submits that:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     the Commission has breached Article 6(1)(c) and 6(2) of
      Regulation No 4064/89 and committed a manifest error
      in assessing the relevant facts of the case, in that it             By the present application, the applicant contests part of the
      approved the notified concentration in the first phase of           Commission Decision of 20 December 2001 in case COMP/
      its investigation accepting the commitments offered by              E-1/36.212-Carbonless paper, by which the Commission
      SEB.                                                                concluded that the applicant infringed Article 81(1) of the
                                                                          Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating
                                                                          in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the
—     the Commission has breached Articles 6(1)(c), 6(2) and              sector of carbonless paper from January 1992 until September
      9(3) of Regulation No 4064/89, Article 253 EC, and the              1995, and imposed a fine on the applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/36                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish                    specified therein at a rate substantially lower than 6,77 %;
the applicant’s participation in an infringement before January                   and
1993. The applicant claims that there is no proof that it
participated in 1992 in general cartel meetings nor national or
regional cartel meetings. Therefore, the burden of proof is not             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
met and, as a consequence, the fine should be reduced.
The applicant claims further that the fine imposed is dispro-
portionate to its turnover in the relevant market and that the              Pleas in law and main arguments
application by the Commission of the Leniency notice (1)
applicable at the time violates the principle of legitimate
expectation and equal treatment.
                                                                            By the contested Decision, the Commission found that the
                                                                            applicant and ten other manufacturers of carbonless paper had
                                                                            infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and article 53(1) of
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines           the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agree-
    in cartel cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4).                            ments and concerted practices by which they fixed price
                                                                            increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed market shares and
                                                                            set up machinery to monitor the implementation of the
                                                                            restrictive agreements.
                                                                            The applicant accepts that it infringed Article 81(1) EC and
                                                                            accepts that a fine may be imposed for its infringement. The
                                                                            applicant does however contest the gravity of the infringement
                                                                            in respect of which the Decision finds it liable.
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Carrs Paper Ltd.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-123/02)                                  The applicant submits that the Decision is inadequately
                                                                            reasoned and that the Commission made a manifest error in
                                                                            assessing the gravity of the applicant’s infringement. The
                           (2002/C 169/64)                                  applicant maintains that it did not know that it was party to
                                                                            an infringement which extended beyond the UK and Ireland,
                                                                            and that the findings of the Decision in this respect are
                     (Language of the case: English)                        not supported by sufficient evidence and are inadequately
                                                                            reasoned. The applicant also alleges that the commercial
                                                                            pressure to which the applicant was subjected by the ringleader
                                                                            of the cartel mitigates the gravity of its infringement.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Carrs Paper Ltd.,                  Furthermore, the applicant submits that the fine is in any event
represented by Mr John Grayston and Mr André Bywater of                     disproportionate and should be significantly reduced. It points
Eversheds, Brussels (Belgium).                                              out that its participation in the cartel was marginal, that its
                                                                            cooperation with the Commission merits a reduction of more
                                                                            than 10 % in the fine imposed, that the state of the carbonless
                                                                            paper industry at the time justifies a reduction in the fine and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 that the fine is disproportionate to the applicant’s ability to
                                                                            pay a fine.
—     fix the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
      Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2001)4573 final
      corr. of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding
      pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of             Finally, the applicant submits that Article 3 (3) of the Decision
      the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Car-                        should be annulled, no reasons having been given for the
      bonless paper) at an amount substantially lower than                  imposition of a default interest rate of 6,77 %, being a 3,5 %
      EUR 1,57 million;                                                     premium over the ECB base rate.
—     annul Article 3, subparagraph 3, of the Decision as it
      concerns the applicant, alternatively fix the rate of interest


title: Case C-268/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Binca Seafoods GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-94/15 Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/16

         Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Binca Seafoods GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-94/15 Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-268/16 P)
   (2016/C 279/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the order of the Court of 11 March 2016 registered as Case T-94/15 and

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (1).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal seeks the annulment of the order of the Court of 11 March 2016 registered as Case T-94/15, which declared the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture, together with the application that that regulation should be declared null and void, to be inadmissible.
   The appellant alleges an infringement of its fundamental rights to due process under Title VI, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The action for annulment, it submits, is allowed on its merits by the primary law of the European Union. The fundamental right under the first sentence of Article 47 seeks to ensure that effective use can be made of remedies allowed on their merits. The order of the General Court infringes the appellant’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of the guarantee of effective legal protection under the first sentence of Article 47 of the Charter.
   The appellant alleges an infringement of its fundamental right under the second sentence of Article 47 inasmuch as its fundamental right under Article 21 to non-discrimination and its fundamental right under Article 16 to the fundamental legal guarantee of the freedom to conduct a business are infringed without its action having been treated as an effective legal remedy. The Court misconstrued the object of its complaint, which was to obtain competitive protection, as a claim to itself benefit from the extended transitional provisions, which however is not the object of its action for annulment.
   The appellant complains that it is discriminated against as a provider of pangasius aquaculture products in Vietnam in relation to providers of aquaculture animal products, in particular those in the European Union, in relation to which transitional provisions were extended by the contested regulation beyond the end of 2015, whereas those provisions terminated in relation to pangasius.
   The appellant alleges that its competitors were able, as a result of arbitrary advantages, to offer their products with the ‘Bio’ label, whereas it was unable to benefit from that. It claims that the competitors have an unfair and completely unjustified competitive advantage in that those competitors are able to use the ‘Bio’ label although they fail to fully comply with the requirements of EU Bio-law. The appellant claims that it should be treated equally by the Union legislature.
   It alleges an infringement of the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and discrimination under Article 21. It also alleges an infringement of its fundamental right under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the guarantee of its freedom to conduct a business.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97.


title: Case C-576/11: Action brought on 18 November 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/9

         Action brought on 18 November 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-576/11)
   2012/C 39/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not taking all necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 23 November 2006 in Case C-425/05, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg to pay to the Commission the proposed penalty payment of EUR 11 340 for each day of delay in compliance with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05, running from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-452/05 has been complied with;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 1 248, running from the date of delivery of the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-452/05 has been complied with, if it is implemented earlier;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the Commission argues that, as is clear from examining the information communicated by the Luxembourg authorities, Luxembourg has not, to date, fully complied with the judgment of the Court almost five years after that judgment was delivered. Luxembourg has not complied with the provisions of either Article 5(4) or Article 5(2). Six waste water treatment plants serving agglomerations with a population equivalent of over 10 000 are still not compliant with the requirements laid down by Directive 97/221/EEC (1).

      (1)  Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)


title: Case C-296/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 29 July 2009 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v M. Baesen

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 29 July 2009 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v M. Baesen
   (Case C-296/09)
   2009/C 267/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

      Defendant: M. Baesen

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purpose of Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, (1) should the expression ‘civil servants and persons treated as such’ be interpreted on the basis of the national social security scheme to which the person concerned is affiliated?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, should a person who is employed under a contract of employment by an employer in the public sector and who is subject, under the national scheme, to the social security scheme for employed persons in respect of some of the branches of social security referred to in Article 4(1) of the Regulation and to a special scheme for civil servants in respect of the branches of social security referred to in Article 4(1)(e) of the Regulation be regarded as a person treated as a civil servant within the meaning of Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


title: Case T-487/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission (State aid — Financial sector — State guarantee accompanying a bank loan — Aid designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Conformity with the Commission’s notices concerning aid to the financial sector in the context of the financial crisis — Legitimate expectation — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission
   (Case T-487/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Financial sector - State guarantee accompanying a bank loan - Aid designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Conformity with the Commission’s notices concerning aid to the financial sector in the context of the financial crisis - Legitimate expectation - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 046/52)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco Privado Português, SA (Lisbon, Portugal); and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, F. Pereira Coutinho, M. Esperança Pina, T. Mafalda Santos, R. Leandro Vasconcelos and A. Kéri, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Banco Privado Português, SA and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.