title: Case F-91/14: Action brought on 5 September 2014  — ZZ and ZZ v Council

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/63

         Action brought on 5 September 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Council
   (Case F-91/14)
   2014/C 421/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas and M. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision calculating the bonus to the first applicant’s pension rights acquired before that applicant’s entry into service in the Council and the decision fixing the number of years of pensionable service obtained once and for all by the second applicant under Articles 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-519/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Liften BV v European Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Liften BV v European Commission
   (Case C-519/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 235/29
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case T-338/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands v OHIM — Julius-K9 (K9 PRODUCTS)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/27

         Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands v OHIM — Julius-K9 (K9 PRODUCTS)
   (Case T-338/12)
   2012/C 295/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Hayward, United States) (represented by: J. Reid, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 May 2012 (R 1961/2011-4) insofar as it rejects the action in relation to all goods in class 25, and the following goods in class 18 namely goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; wallets, purses; purses, not of precious metal; and

               —

               Order the proprietor to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘K9 PRODUCTS’ in black and white, for among others goods in classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 5966031

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 3933256 of the figurative mark ‘K9’ in black and white, for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark partially invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent it declared the CTM invalid and rejected the cancellation request in its entirety

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


title: Case T-300/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Amga — Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002            EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 289/39
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Amga —                              Action brought on 30 September 2002 by AEM S.p.A.
Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA against the                             against the Commission of the European Communities
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-301/02)
                        (Case T-300/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/71)
                        (2002/C 289/70)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 European Communities on 30 September 2002 by AEM
European Communities on 30 September 2002 by Amga                          S.p.A., represented by Andrea Giardina, Carlo Croff, Alberto
— Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA, represented by                     Santa Maria and Giuseppe Pizzonia, lawyers.
Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo and Massimo Merola, lawyers.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State                      Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares that the three-
      Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares unlawful and                      year tax regime relating to the profits of local public
      incompatible with the common market the three-year                         service undertakings the majority of the shares in which
      exemption from tax on profits granted by Italy to local                    are publicly owned, as introduced by Article 3(70) of Law
      public service undertakings the majority of the shares                     No 549 of 28 December 1995 and Article 66(14) of
      in which are publicly owned within the meaning of                          Decree-Law No 331 of 30 August 1993 (converted into
      Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995, and loans granted on                     Law No 427 of 29 October 1993), constitutes State aid
      preferential terms pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law                    which is incompatible with the common market (Article 2
      No 488/1986, and in so far as it requires Italy to recover                 of the decision), and in so far as it requires Italy to recover
      the aid in question from the recipients thereof, including                 the aid in question from the recipients thereof (Article 3
      the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);                          of the decision);
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei                     advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
Servizi v Commission and Case T-297/02 ACEA S.p.A. v                       Servizi v Commission, Case T-297/02 ACEA S.p.A. v Com-
Commission.                                                                mission and Case T-300/02 Amga S.p.A. v Commission.


title: Case F-58/06: Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Balázs Dániel Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/35

         Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Balázs Dániel Simon v Court of Justice and Commission
   (Case F-58/06)
   (2006/C 190/65)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Balázs Dániel Simon (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: György Magyar, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: Marc Schauss) and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul in their entirety the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice of 21 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's request to be transferred, the decision of 27 September 2005 confirming that decision and the decision of 15 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the previous decisions, and also the decision of the appointing authority of the Commission of 3 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's appointment and the decision of 16 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision;

               —

               order the defendants to make good the harm caused to the applicant by the annulled decisions, and

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is currently an official of the Commission, took up a post at the Court of Justice as a lawyer/linguist in Grade A*7 following competition EPSO/LA/12/03. He applied for a vacant post at the Commission and in May 2005 requested to be transferred. The Court rejected his request. The applicant again submitted his candidature to the Commission after the Commission had published a vacancy notice. Although the Commission chose the applicant for that post, it did not take the measures necessary for his transfer. Then, after the applicant left the service of the Court, the Commission engaged him as a successful candidate in competition EPSO/A/4/03 in Grade A*5 with effect from 2 March 2006.
   The applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of 21 July 2005, 27 September 2005, 3 October 2005 and 16 February 2006; he relies on a failure to state reasons, a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers. The applicant also claims, in support of his application for annulment of those decisions, that there has been a breach of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 and of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and non-discrimination. He seeks annulment of the Commission of the Court of 15 February 2006 on the basis of a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-208/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Portugal Telecom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo — Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ — Obligation to provide reasons — Infringement by object — Ancillary restriction — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for the hearing of witnesses)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Portugal Telecom v Commission
   (Case T-208/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo - Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ - Obligation to provide reasons - Infringement by object - Ancillary restriction - Potential competition - Infringement by effects - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Request for the hearing of witnesses))
   (2016/C 287/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and R. Bordalo Junqueiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and T. Christoforou, and, subsequently, C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Subject matter

   Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA at EUR 12 290 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Portugal Telecom SGPS to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Portugal Telecom SGPS.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena (Case C-229/95)

text:
2. 9. 95              I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/13
      be reutilized may be the subject of a legal transaction or        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      quoted on public or private commercial lists ?                    Correctionnel, Liege, by judgment of that court of 7 June
                                                                        1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                               civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his
( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                            capacity as President of the Association Pharmaceutique
( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                                Beige
                                                                                Case C-231 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/26 )
References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court), Liege, of 7 June 1995 ,
A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek                 which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995 , for
                                  State
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Bent
          ( Cases C-225/95 , C-226/95 and C-227/95 )                    Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being
                            ( 95/C 229/24 )                             Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as President of the
                                                                        Association Pharmaceutique Beige, on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question :
European Communities by decisions of the Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which               Do the pharmacists' statutory monopoly to supply sterile
were received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1995 , for               articles, and the correspondig prohibition forbidding
a preliminary ruling in the cases of A. Kapasakalis,                    distributors of such articles to sell them directly to doctors,
D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State on the                    dentists, veterinary surgeons and midwives or to scientific
following questions :                                                   establishments or hospitals — a prohibition not applying to
                                                                        such sales to private individuals — which are the result of
1 . Does the result to be achieved by Council Directive                 the application of Articles 1 and 44 of the Royal Decree of
      89/48/EEC ( ] ) entail the recognition of rights in favour        6 June 1960 in conjunction with Royal Decree No 78 of
      of the individuals to whom it relates ?                           10 November 1967, constitute a measure having equivalent
                                                                        effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Articles 30
2 . Is the content of those rights sufficiently precise to              and 36 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 ?
      enable them to be deduced solely on the basis of the
      framework laid down in the provisions of that
      Directive ?
3 . Is there a causal link between the infringement of the
      obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 12 of           Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      the Directive by the Greek State and the demage which                 European Communities against the French Republic
      the applicant claims to have suffered ?                                                   ( Case C-234/95 )
(') OJ No L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1989 , p . 16 .                                                          ( 95/C 229/27 )
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht              represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                   Moll v. Berhane Mesghena                             office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Center,
                          ( Case C-229/95 )                             Kirchberg.
                             ( 95/C 229/25 )
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                   1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
 ( Labour Court) Wiesbaden of 18 April 1995 which was                        administrative measures needed to comply with Council
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 1995 , for a                        Directive 92/50/EEC ( J ) relating to the coordination of
preliminary ruling in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane                     procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
Mesghena on the following question :                                         French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             that Directive, in particular Article 44 thereof;
 May a cleaning contract relating to specific premises
constitute a part of a business within the meaning of                   2 . in the alternative, declare that in any event, by failing
 Directive 77/187/EEC ( M ?                                                  forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures,
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                     under those same provisions;
                                                                         3.  order the French Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case C-87/05: Order of the President of the Court of  7 September 2005  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2005 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-87/05) (1)

   (2006/C 143/58)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.


9.9.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 259/31
       Removal from the register of Case T-85/95 (1)                              Removal from the register of Case T-176/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/55)                                                            (2000/C 259/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the First Chamber
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/95:                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
DIR International Film S.r.l. and Others v Commission of the               has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-176/99
European Communities.                                                      Q. v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ No C 137 of 3.6.95.                                                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
        Removal from the register of Case T-8/98 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-343/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/56)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/59)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber,
Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                      By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
register of Case T-8/98 Siderca S.A.I.C. v Commission of the               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                      has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-343/99
                                                                           Hans-Werner Schmidt v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
       Removal from the register of Case T-80/98 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/57)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-108/00 R
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/60)
By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                    (Language of the case: French)
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-80/98 CIT
Belgique S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                           By order of 3 July 2000 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-108/00
                                                                           R Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.


title: Case C-275/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation of energy products — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 2(3) — Direct effect — Motor fuel additives coming under heading 3811 of the CN)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/21

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-275/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 2(3) - Direct effect - Motor fuel additives coming under heading 3811 of the CN))
   (2015/C 236/29)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be construed as precluding national provisions, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, which impose excise duty on additives coming under heading 3811 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, at a rate which differs from that applied to the fuel to which they are added.

               2.

               The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by an individual as against the competent national authority in proceedings before a national court which seek to have set aside the application of national legal rules which are at variance with that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/1

         2010/C 328/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 317, 20.11.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

      OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

      OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

      OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

      OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

      OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

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


title: Case C-471/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding GmbH

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding GmbH
   (Case C-471/04)
   (2005/C 19/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 14 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 5 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding GmbH on the following question:
   Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the Treaty establishing the European Community and to Article 73b of that Treaty if financing costs incurred by a corporation which have a direct economic link to profits, not subject to tax in Germany, derived from a holding in a capital company established in another Member State may be deducted as operating expenditure only in so far as no profits from that holding are distributed on a tax-free basis?


title: Case T-494/12: Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuits)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/56

         Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuits)
   (Case T-494/12)
   2013/C 26/114
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Biscuits Poult (Montauban, France) (represented by: C. Chapoullié, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banketbakkerij Merba BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul or at least vary the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in Case R 914/2011-3;

               —

               uphold the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared that Design No 001114292-0001 was valid;

               —

               dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity registered under reference ICD 000007120; and

               —

               order Banketbakkerij Merba BV to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design of a soft-centred biscuit, for biscuits in Class 01-01 — Community design No 001114292-0001

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Banketbakkerij Merba BV

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the Community design declared invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 4(2) and of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002


title: Case C-382/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-183/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/14

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-183/13: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-382/15 P)
   (2015/C 354/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Skype (represented by: A. Carboni, M. Browne, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky IP International Ltd, Sky plc

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should order:

               —

               that the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-183/13 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

               —

               that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-183/13; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 2398/2010-4; and (iii) Opposition B 812 380 before the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant’s sole Ground of Appeal is that the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 0f 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (1) in giving its decision in case number T-183/13 relating to Community Trade Mark application no. 3 660 065 (the ‘Contested Mark’). In particular, the General Court made the following errors in reaching its decision to uphold the Respondent’s finding of likelihood of confusion:

               1.

               when considering the similarity of goods and services between the Contested Mark and the Interveners’ earlier mark, the Court identified an incorrect list of services covered by the Contested Mark;

               2.

               it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands;

               3.

               it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date;

               4.

               it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right, and placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks, as well as failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between them counteracts any visual or aural similarity;

               5.

               it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services; and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date;

               6.

               it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:

                           i.

                           the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and

                           ii.

                           real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date.

         Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the Court: (1) annuls the decision of the General Court in case number T-183/13 and remits the application to the Respondent in order to allow it to proceed; and (2) orders that the costs of the proceedings be awarded to the Appellant.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-294/03: Order of the President of the Court of  1 December 2005  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 December 2005 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-294/03) (1)

   (2006/C 143/54)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 213, 06.09.2003.


title: Case T-297/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/43

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)
   (Case T-297/17)
   (2017/C 231/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VSM . Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WE KNOW ABRASIVES’ — Application for registration No 15 063 522

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 in Case R 1595/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Breach of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 63(1), in conjunction with Articles 58 and 59, of Regulation No 207/2009, breach of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and thus infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem.


title: Case F-74/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/30

         Action brought on 25 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-74/14)
   2014/C 388/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Declaration of the unlawfulness of Article 7 of Annex V and Article 8 of Annex VII to the new Staff Regulations of Officials and of the annulment of the decision withdrawing from the applicant the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of travel costs between her place of employment and her place of origin to which she was entitled before the entry into force of that new provision of the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Articles 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               Annul the decision no longer to grant the applicant any travelling time or the reimbursement of annual travel costs with effect from 2014;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-70/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the European Maritime Safety Agency

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/35

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the European Maritime Safety Agency
   (Case T-70/05)
   (2005/C 106/71)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the European Maritime Safety Agency was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of EMSA, to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               annul all subsequent decisions of EMSA related to the Tenders under examination in the current application;

               —

               order EMSA to pay the applicant's legal costs and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the application, even if the application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant company filed bids in response to EMSA's calls for tenders EMSA C-1/0104-2004 (1) and EMSA C.2/06/04 (2) for the SafeSeaNet Validation and further development and for the marine casualty database, network and management system. By the contested decisions the applicant's bids were rejected and the contracts awarded to another bidder.
   In support of its application to annul the contested decisions the applicant claims first of all that the defendant agency violated the principles of good faith and good administration by acting with significant delay and failing to offer adequate answers to the tenderers' requests before the submission of the bids. The defendant refused to answer the applicant's questions, on the grounds that they had not been submitted in time, even though it had accepted indirectly that technical problems under its own control prevented the questions from being received. The applicant considers that had the defendant answered its questions timely and with diligence, it would have been able to submit a more competitive offer.
   The applicant further contends that the defendant violated the Financial Regulation (3) as well as Article 17(1) of Directive 92/50 (4) by using evaluation criteria, especially the tenderers' prior experience, that were neither specified nor included in the call for tenders.
   The applicant also claims that the defendant committed a manifest error of appreciation in considering that the successful bidder's offer was superior to that of the applicant. In this respect, the applicant contends that no predetermined objective methodology was used to evaluate its offer, that on the contrary the criteria used left room for subjective evaluation and that, finally, there were no clear and objective metrics.
   The applicant finally submits that the defendant failed to provide pertinent information and state adequate reasons for its acts by not replying to the applicant's legitimate and timely questions.

      (1)  OJ 2004/S 126-106254.

      (2)  OJ 2004/S 128-108027.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002 p. 1.

      (4)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24/07/1992 p. 1.


title: Case T-760/16: Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/46

         Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets)
   (Case T-760/16)
   (2017/C 006/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artex SpA (Zeno di Cassola, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 142 245-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 in Case R 535/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and, if applicable, the other parties involved to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002, infringement of principles relating to the burden of proof and infringement of rules of logic in the evaluation of evidence;

               —

               Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-293/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Paolo Lunardi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Paolo Lunardi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma
   (Case C-293/09)
   2009/C 233/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paolo Lunardi

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

      Question referred

   Is Article 19(5) of Presidential Decree No 633/72 at variance with Community law and with the principle of the neutrality of VAT, and in particular has Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 been incorrectly transposed in so far as the practical consequence of national law is that, as a result of the method prescribed for calculating the deductible proportion, a taxable person whose transactions are exempt under statute has no right to deduct VAT paid on purchases of equipment?


title: Case T-166/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — PowderJect Research v OHIM (POWDERMED)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/28

         Action brought on 28 June 2006 — PowderJect Research v OHIM (POWDERMED)
   (Case T-166/06)
   (2006/C 190/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: PowderJect Research Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 April 2006, relating to the applicant's Community trade mark application No 4202743 for POWERMED in classes 5, 10 and 42;

               —

               award costs in favour of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POWDERMED’ for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 42 — application No 4 202 743

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The Board of Appeal erred in treating the trade mark as being composed of two English words in common usage and it gave no or insufficient consideration to the structure of the trade mark applied for by not taking into account that the trade mark would at first sight suggest the past tense of a verb by reason of its closing letters ‘…ed’ and that it would not be immediately apparent to the relevant public that the trade mark could be dissected into ‘powder’ and ‘med’.


title: Case T-416/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/29

         Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission
   (Case T-416/13)
   2013/C 313/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valletta, Malta); and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris, and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013, to close the complaint filed by the applicants against the Hellenic Republic and the Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics (OPAP) in case COMP/39.981; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence, and a manifest error of fact in assessing the arguments set out in the complaint with reference to Article 102 TFEU, the concrete and autonomous abuse or abuses of dominance committed by OPAP and the relevant market definition.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to state reasons and a breach of Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission and breach of the principle of autonomous nature and objectives of competition rules.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of law, failure to assess the compatibility of the relevant Greek legislation with Union law, prior to conducting the assessment of an infringement under Article 102 TFEU, and breach of the right to a good and diligent administration conferred by Article 41(1) of the Charter of Rights, and the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence with reference to Article 106 TFEU.


title: Case T-191/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — MIP METRO v OHIM Tesco Stores (METRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative mark consisting of the word mark METRO — Earlier national word mark METRO — Expiry of protection of earlier national trade mark)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — MIP METRO v OHIM Tesco Stores (METRO)
   (Case T-191/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative mark consisting of the word mark METRO - Earlier national word mark METRO - Expiry of protection of earlier national trade mark)
   (2006/C 281/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MIP METRO Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase, avocat)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Tesco Stores Ltd (Cheshunt, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2004 (Case R 486/2003-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tesco Stores Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 March 2004 (Case R 486/2003-1) is annulled;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: Case C-294/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/27

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-294/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 51/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda — OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-564/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v European Commission (Appeals — Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU — Contractual liability of the European Union — Article 272 TFEU — Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts relating to the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects — Eligible costs and amounts advanced by the Commission — Declaratory action — No vested and current interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v European Commission
   (Case C-564/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU - Contractual liability of the European Union - Article 272 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts relating to the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects - Eligible costs and amounts advanced by the Commission - Declaratory action - No vested and current interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2015/C 138/18)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (represented by: V. Khristianos and S. Paliou, dikigori)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Conte and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case T-92/09: Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Strategi Group v OHIM — Reed Business Information (STRATEGI)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/39

         Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Strategi Group v OHIM — Reed Business Information (STRATEGI)
   (Case T-92/09)
   2009/C 113/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Strategi Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reed Business Information (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2008 in case R 1581/2007-2 and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

               —

               Order OHIM (and any intervening parties) to pay the costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STRATEGI’, for services in class 35

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

      Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 1 240 001 of the word mark ‘Stratégies’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in particular by ruling in the circumstances of this case that use of a trade mark as the title of a magazine may constitute use of that trade mark for services offered in that publication, and by failing to set out the proper evidential requirements needed to prove genuine use in such circumstances and/or by failing to give appropriate consideration to the evidence filed on the basis of the correct principles; Further, or in the alternative, infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal failed to properly apply the provision of the said legal provision to the circumstances of the case, since it failed to provide guidance on the evidence required to establish proof of use and/or wrongly found that the evidence filed by the opponent was inadequate to establish use of the trade mark for the services relied upon.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2003 in Case T-311/01: Les Éditions Albert René v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier Community trade mark ASTERIX — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the word "starix" — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
10.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 7/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and
                                                                          F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                       of 22 October 2003                                 against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                          D. Martin) — application, first, for annulment of the Com-
in Case T-311/01: Les Éditions Albert René v Office for                   mission’s decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s com-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     plaints seeking damages to compensate her for the non-
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                material damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the
                                                                          Staff Reports concerning her for the periods 1993/1995,
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —                          1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to
Earlier Community trade mark ASTERIX — Application for                    compensate her for that non-material damage — the Court of
a Community figurative mark containing the word ‘starix’                  First Instance (Single Judge: V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
— Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5)                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003,
                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                             in which it:
                          (2004/C 7/59)                                   1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 2 500, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already
                  (Language of the case: German)                                awarded by the Appointing Authority.
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.
In Case T-311/01, Les Éditions Albert René, established in
Paris (France), represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat, v Office for         3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneid-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
er), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Trucco sistemi di
telecomunicazione SpA, established in Milan (Italy), APPEAL
against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) of 2 October 2001 (Case R 1030/2000-1),
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 22 October 2003, in which it:                                                       of 23 October 2003
1.    Dismisses the action.                                               in Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.                                                                            compensation)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 23 October 2003
                                                                          In Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet, an official of the Commission
in Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Com-                          of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Lux-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                         embourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
(Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
                          compensation)                                   C. Berardis-Kayser) — application, first, for annulment of
                                                                          the Commission’s decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                          complaints seeking damages to compensate him for the non-
                          (2004/C 7/60)                                   material damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the
                                                                          staff reports concerning him for the periods 1993/1995,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to
                                                                          compensate him for that non-material damage — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (Single Judge: V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
In Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi, an official of                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002,
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   in which it:


title: Case C-191/05: Action brought on 28 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/9

         Action brought on 28 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-191/05)
   (2005/C 155/18)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel van Beek and António Caeiros, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by altering the demarcation of the Moura, Mourão e Barrancos Special Protection Area (SPA), excluding from it areas providing a habitat for species of wild birds for whose protection that SPA was designated, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

               2.

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Moura, Mourão e Barrancos Special Protection Area (SPA) was established by the Portuguese Government on 23 September 1999 by Decree-Law No 384-B/99 of 23 September 1999. The boundaries of that SPA are laid down in Annex XXIV to that piece of legislation.

               2.

               It is clear from the information provided by the Portuguese authorities that the alteration of the demarcation of the Moura, Mourão e Barrancos SPA by Decree-Law No 141/2002 of 20 May 2002 has no scientific basis. However, it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that species whose protection was considered necessary can be excluded only on scientific grounds.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.


title: Case C-511/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2013 by Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-469/07: Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV v Council of the European Union

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/9

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2013 by Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-469/07: Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-511/13 P)
   2013/C 352/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV (represented by: M.L. Catrain González, abogada, E.A. Wright, H. Zhu, Barristers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt), European Commission, Osram GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment and annul the Contested Regulation in so far as it applies to the Appellants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the Appellants’ costs both before the General Court and in connection with the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the Appellants request that the Judgment be set aside and the Contested Regulation be annulled on the grounds that:

               1.

               The General Court wrongly interpreted Article 9(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (1) (the ‘basic regulation’) (‘Article 9(1)’) when concluding that the Council is entitled to apply Article 9(1) a fortiori to situations that fall outside the scope of application of that provision (i.e., where there is no withdrawal of a complaint, but rather support for the complaint merely falls). The General Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 9(1) is not supported by either the wording or the scheme of the provisions of the basic regulation. It is also contradicted by the Institutions’ practice in the last 25 years during which reliance on Article 9(1), following the withdrawal of a complaint, has always triggered the termination of the related investigation.

               2.

               The General Court committed an error of law by misinterpreting, and therefore misapplying, Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic regulation (‘Articles 4(1) and Article 5(4)’) when defining the ‘Community industry’. This led to the incorrect conclusion that a ‘major proportion’ of total Community production must be determined through application of only one of the two thresholds required by Article 5(4), the 25 % threshold only. The erroneous definition of the ‘Community industry’ vitiated the Institutions’ injury analysis which, instead of being determined on the basis of the effect of the dumped imports on the ‘Community industry’ as set out in Article 3(1) of the basic regulation (‘Article 3(1)’), and defined in Article 5(4) was assessed on the basis of the situation of the ‘supporting company’ or ‘the largest producer’. Neither of these terms is used in the basic regulation for the purpose of determining ‘injury’.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, p. 1


title: Case C-592/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico v Ediltecnica SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 191(2) TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — National legislation which does not provide for the possibility for the administrator to require the owners of contaminated sites who are not responsible for the contamination to implement preventive and remedial measures and which provides only for the obligation to reimburse the measures carried out by the administration — Compatibility with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle, the principle of preventive action and the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/12

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico v Ediltecnica SpA
   (Case C-592/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 191(2) TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - National legislation which does not provide for the possibility for the administrator to require the owners of contaminated sites who are not responsible for the contamination to implement preventive and remedial measures and which provides only for the obligation to reimburse the measures carried out by the administration - Compatibility with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle, the principle of preventive action and the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source))
   (2016/C 038/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

      Defendant: Ediltecnica SpA

      Operative part of the order

   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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in circumstances in which it is impossible to identify the polluter of a site or to have that person adopt remedial measures, do not permit the competent authority to require the owner of that site (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement preventive and remedial measures, the latter being held responsible only for the reimbursement of expenses related to decontamination measures carried out by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case C-149/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) — ‘Genuine use of the trade mark’ — Territorial scope of use — Use of the Community trade mark in a single Member State — Whether sufficient)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV
   (Case C-149/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - ‘Genuine use of the trade mark’ - Territorial scope of use - Use of the Community trade mark in a single Member State - Whether sufficient)
   2013/C 46/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Leno Merken BV

      Defendant: Hagelkruis Beheer BV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Use of the mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Use of a Community trade mark on the territory of just one Member State — Use regarded as genuine by that State if it were an identical national mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of that provision.
   A Community trade mark is put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 when it is used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community for the goods or services covered by it. It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are met in the main proceedings, taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case T-57/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Pegasus v Parliament

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/42

         Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Pegasus v Parliament
   (Case T-57/17)
   (2017/C 078/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pegasus (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Reference: FINS-2017-31) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering that a guarantee be lodged;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, which is in essence identical or similar to that raised in Case T-54/17, CLF v Parliament.


title: Case C-493/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 15 October 2010 — M. E. and others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 15 October 2010 — M. E. and others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
   (Case C-493/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/32
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: M. E. and others

      Defendants: Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the transferring Member State under Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (1) obliged to assess the compliance of the receiving Member State with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the EU, Council Directives 2003/9EC (2), 2004/83/EC (3) and 2005/85/EC (4) and Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?

               2.

               If the answer is yes, and if the receiving Member State is found not to be in compliance with one or more of those provisions, is the transferring Member Sate obliged to accept responsibility for examining the application under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers
   OJ L 31, p. 18

      (3)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted
   OJ L 304, p. 2

      (4)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
   OJ L 326, p. 13


title: Case C-394/16: Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — FMS Wertmanagement AöR v Heta Asset Resolution AG

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — FMS Wertmanagement AöR v Heta Asset Resolution AG
   (Case C-394/16) (1)

   (2017/C 086/29)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case T-699/13 P: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Action lodged out of time — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/43

         Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-699/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action lodged out of time - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 409/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:162, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2  000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-285/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark TORRE DE FRIAS — Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)
   (Case T-285/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark TORRE DE FRIAS - Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
   (2009/C 44/73)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and J. García Murillo, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bodegas Cándido, SA (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R-1069/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Cándido, SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-511/16: Action brought on 29 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/13

      Action brought on 29 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      (Case C-511/16)
      (2016/C 441/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, G. von Rintelen, Agents)

         Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that in not adopting by 1 June 2015 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, or at least in not informing the Commission of those measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2014/27/EU;

                  —

                  impose upon the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 8 710 with effect from the day of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU;

                  —

                  order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The period for transposing the directive expired on 1 June 2015.
      The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU within the period for its transposition laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive.


title: Case T-309/04: Action brought on 28 July 2004 by TV2/DANMARK A/S against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/43

         Action brought on 28 July 2004 by TV2/DANMARK A/S against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-309/04)
   (2004/C 262/82)
   Language of the case: Danish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 July 2004 by TV2/DANMARK A/S, Odense (Denmark), represented by Olaf Koktvedgaard, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 C(2004)1814 Final in Case C 2/2003 (ex NN 22/2002) concerning measures taken by Denmark in favour of TV2/Danmark in its entirety or, in the alternative, partially;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision, the Commission approved the aid granted to TV2/DANMARK from 1995 to 2002 in the form of licence-fee resources and certain other measures as compatible with the common market, except for an amount of DKK 628.2 million which, in the Commission's view, constitutes unlawful State aid which the Kingdom of Denmark is obliged to recover from the applicant.
   In support of its action the applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted in a manner contrary to the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 87(1) EC, Article 86(2) EC, Article 295 EC and the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting. The applicant submits in particular

               —

               that the principle that both sides must be heard has been disregarded, that the calculation of the excess compensation includes amounts which do not relate to the period investigated and that the basis and reasoning of the assessment of the building-up of TV2's net capital are insufficient;

               —

               that the Commission's assessment is not based on the context at the time when the measures in favour of TV2 were taken;

               —

               that the licence-fee resources transferred to TV2 and the advertising revenue, which was transferred to TV2 from 1995 to 1997 through the TV2 fund, are not State aid, since they are not State resources;

               —

               that there is no State aid, even though the transferred funds exceed TV2's net costs inherent in the performance of its public service obligations, since the funds have in fact not been used to cross-subsidise commercial activities;

               —

               that TV2 has not obtained an economic advantage that it would not have had under normal market conditions, since the profits achieved by TV2 do not exceed reasonable earnings in the performance of TV2's public service obligations, and since the building-up of TV2's net capital was justified based on market considerations;

               —

               that the building-up of TV2's net capital does not exceed what is necessary for the fulfilment of TV2's public service obligations;

               —

               that there cannot be a decision ordering recovery from a public limited company created after the period of investigation, TV2/Danmark A/S, since there has been no enrichment for that company;

               —

               that the claim for interest on the amount allegedly to be repaid should be dismissed, since the amount claimed for recovery already includes interest.


title: Case C-217/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/6

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-217/14)
   2014/C 223/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, L. Flynn, K. Herrmann, agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, in relation to Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing 2003/54/EC, Ireland has failed to adopt by 3 March 2011 at the latest provisions transposing the definitions of points 8, 18, 21, 22, 32, 33 and 34 of its Article 2 and the requirements laid down in paragraphs (1) to (7) and (12) of its Article 9 in conjunction with paragraph (11) of Article 9, in the second and third sentences of its Article 16 as well as paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 16, in the second sentence of its Article 38(1), in paragraphs (1), (4) and (8) of its Article 39, and in paragraphs (1) to (3), (5) and (7) of its Article 40 or, in any event, has failed to notify the Commission of any such measures, such that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that Directive;

               —

               Impose a penalty payment on Ireland pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU in the amount of EUR 20  358 per day, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court and payable to the account of the Union's own resources, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ L 211, p. 55


title: Case C-105/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, Belgium) — NV Lammers & Van Cleeff v Belgische Staat (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest paid by a subsidiary on funds lent by the parent company established in another Member State — Reclassification of the interest as taxable dividends — No such reclassification where interest payments are made to a resident company)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, Belgium) — NV Lammers & Van Cleeff v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-105/07) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Interest paid by a subsidiary on funds lent by the parent company established in another Member State - Reclassification of the interest as taxable dividends - No such reclassification where interest payments are made to a resident company)
   (2008/C 64/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NV Lammers & Van Cleeff

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC — National fiscal legislation reclassifying as taxable dividends interest paid by a subsidiary by way of remuneration in respect of loans provided by the parent company established in another Member State, but not reclassifying such interest as taxable dividends when paid to a company established in Belgium
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.