title: Case C-32/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-40/14: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/15

         Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-40/14: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission
   (Case C-32/15 P)
   (2015/C 089/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               quash the Order of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in case T-40/14, in so far as it dismisses the Appellants' action as inadmissible;

               —

               declare that the Appellants' action is admissible, or alternatively that it is admissible for the period starting on 10th January 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants rely on four pleas in law. In the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed the application brought by the Appellants for, in essence the compensation tor the losses incurred by them that flow from the wrongful termination of the Power Purchase Agreement (
         PPA
      ) in application of unlawful Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C-41/05 (1). The General Court found the Appellants' action time-barred and dismissed their application as inadmissible.
   By their first plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (the
         Rules of Procedure
      ) providing an extension on account of distance to time-limits does not apply to the Appellants' application although the reading of the Treaties, Statute of the Court of Justice (the
         Statute
      ) and Rules of Procedure shows Article 102(2) applies to the limitation period laid down in the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute.
   By their second plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law in the application of Article 268 and 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (
         TFEU
      ) when requiring the Appellants to invoke the recurrent nature of their damage in their initial request.
   By their third plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why the case-law referred to by the applicants to support the recurrent nature of their damage is not comparable to their situation, although the applicants had provided an extensive demonstration.
   By their fourth plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law when it rejected the Appellant's argumentation that their damage is continuous on the basis that the Commission's decision is still under review.

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 53.


title: Case C-16/12: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Törvényszék — Hungary) — HERMES Hitel és Faktor Zrt v Nemzeti Földalapkezelő Szervezet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — General principles of European Union law — Forestry Act — Lack of connection to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Törvényszék — Hungary) — HERMES Hitel és Faktor Zrt v Nemzeti Földalapkezelő Szervezet
   (Case C-16/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - General principles of European Union law - Forestry Act - Lack of connection to European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2012/C 303/13
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Gyulai Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HERMES Hitel és Faktor Zrt

      Defendant: Nemzeti Földalapkezelő Szervezet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gyulai Törvényszék — Interpretation of the general principles of European Union law — Mortgage loan contract concluded between a financial establishment and a public body — Legislative amendment declaring non-transferable certain forested areas which were previously traded — Amendment preventing public auction of the property mortgaged following legal proceedings brought by a creditor for non-performance of the contract by the debtor

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Gyulai Törvényszék (Hungary), by decision of 4 January 2012

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/1

         (2007/C 117/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

      OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

      OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

      OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case C-665/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA
   (Case C-665/13)
   2014/C 85/21
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

      Defendant: Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination is derived, be interpreted as applying to public sector employees?

               2.

               Does the fact that the State imposed a unilateral suspension of the payment of those items of remuneration and applied this only to a specific category of workers — those in the public sector — constitute discrimination having regard to the nature of the employment relationship?


title: Case T-207/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/36

         Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission
   (Case T-207/16)
   (2016/C 251/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision to exclude the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision to register the applicant in and activate the Early Warning System and/or the Early Detection and Exclusion System, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the competent authorising officer and/or the competent contracting authority with respect to the exclusion of the applicant and, second, of the decision of the competent authorising officer and/or the competent contracting authority whereby registration was applied for or effected, and the exclusion warning activated by the Commission, with respect to the applicant, in the Early Warning System and or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System which is operated by the European Commission.
   The applicant submits that the contested acts should be annulled for the following reasons:

               1.

               First, infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

               2.

               Second, infringement of the provisions of Decision 2014/792/EU (1) with respect to the Early Warning System and Regulation 2015/1929 (2) with respect to the Early Detection and Exclusion System, the right to a hearing and the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third, infringement of the general principles of good administration and transparency.

      (1)  2014/792/EU: Commission Decision of 13 November 2014 on the Early Warning System to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 68)

      (2)  Regulation (ΕE, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1)


title: Case F-94/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2011 — Carpenito v Council

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2011 — Carpenito v Council
   (Case F-94/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/130
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.01.11, p. 41.


title: Case C-21/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-399/11 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/11

         Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-399/11 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
   (Case C-21/15 P)
   (2015/C 081/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Banco Santander, S.A. and Santusa Holding, S.L.

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.
   That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:

               —

               in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and

               —

               in the second place, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the concept of selectivity by making an artificial distinction between aid to the export of goods and aid to the export of capital.


title: Case C-310/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev
   (Case C-310/16)
   (2016/C 314/17)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

      Party to the main proceedings

   Petar Dzivev

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with:

                           —

                           Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which envisages that the Member States will take measures to effectively counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union;

                           —

                           Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests (the ‘PFI Convention’) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council Decision 2007/436/EC [of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources] [Euratom], according to which every Member State is to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective punishment of VAT evasion;

                           —

                           Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter which guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal previously established by law,

                     if, under national law, the evidence obtained through the deployment of ‘special intelligence methods’, specifically through the interception of the telecommunications of individuals subsequently charged with VAT fraud, cannot be used because it was ordered by a court that lacked jurisdiction, and at the same time the following requirements are met:

                           —

                           At an earlier point (between one and three months previously) the interception of some of these telecommunications was requested and ordered by the same court, when at that point it still had jurisdiction;

                           —

                           an application authorising the disputed interception of telecommunications (for the extension of the earlier interception of telecommunications and for the tapping of new telephone connections) was made at the same court which no longer had jurisdiction because immediately before that its jurisdiction had been transferred to a different court; despite its lack of jurisdiction the original court examined the substance of the application and made an order;

                           —

                           at a later point (about one month later) a fresh application was made to authorise the tapping of the same telephone connections and granted by the court that now had jurisdiction;

                           —

                           none of the orders made actually contain any reasoning supporting them;

                           —

                           the statutory regulation that ordered the transfer of jurisdiction was unclear, led to numerous contradictory court decisions and caused the Varhoven sad to issue a binding interpretation decision about two years after the legal transfer of jurisdiction and the interception of telecommunications in question;

                           —

                           the court examining the current case is not authorised to decide on applications authorising the deployment of special intelligence methods (the interception of telecommunications); however, it does have jurisdiction to decide on the legality of any interception of telecommunications carried out, including the finding that an order does not meet the statutory requirements and therefore to refrain from assessing the evidence obtained in this way; this power only exists if a valid order has been issued for the interception of telecommunications;

                           —

                           the use of this evidence (the defendants’ telephone conversations, the interception of which was ordered by a court that had already lost its jurisdiction) is of crucial importance to the resolution of the question of [the defendant’s] liability as the ringleader of a criminal gang formed for the purpose of committing tax offences under the Bulgarian Value Added Tax Act or as an instigator of specific tax offences, but he can only be found guilty and sentenced if these telephone conversations can be used in evidence; otherwise he would have to be acquitted.

               2.

               Does the judgment given in the reference for a preliminary ruling C 614/14 apply in the present case?


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-236/03 P Commission of the European Communities v CMA CGM and Others (Appeal — Cartels — Maritime transport between northern Europe and the Far East — Fines — Limitation period — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/10

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-236/03 P Commission of the European Communities v CMA CGM and Others (1)

   (Appeal - Cartels - Maritime transport between northern Europe and the Far East - Fines - Limitation period - Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)
   (2005/C 106/19)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-236/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on 2 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: P. Oliver), the other parties to the proceedings being CMA CGM, established in Marseilles (France), Evergreen Marine Corp. Ltd, established in Taipei, (Taiwan), Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Taipei, Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH, established in Seoul (South Korea), Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Berhad, established in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd, established in Tokyo, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore, Nippon Yusen Kaisha, established in Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd, established in Wanchai (China), P & O Nedlloyd Container Liner Ltd, established in London, Yangming Marine Transport Corp., established in Taipei, (lawyers: J. Pheasant and M. Levitt), Senator Lines GmbH, formerly DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in Bremen (Germany), (lawyers: J. Pheasant and M. Levitt, and D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister), and Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul, in liquidation — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 28 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case T-322/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KENZO — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Late submission of documents — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)
   (Case T-322/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KENZO - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Late submission of documents - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 081/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: M. Rajh and J. Crespo Carrillo, and subsequently by M. Rajh and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2013 (Case R 1364/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-447/08 and C-448/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08) (Freedom to provide services — Gambling — Offer of gambling via the internet — Promotion of gambling organised in other Member States — Activities reserved to public or non-profit-making bodies — Criminal penalties)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08)
   (Joined Cases C-447/08 and C-448/08) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Gambling - Offer of gambling via the internet - Promotion of gambling organised in other Member States - Activities reserved to public or non-profit-making bodies - Criminal penalties)
   2010/C 234/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea hovrätt

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Arts. 12, 43, 49 and 54 EC — National legislation prohibiting, by means of criminal penalties, the promotion of participation in a lottery only in the case where it is organised in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main actions, which prohibits the advertising to residents of that State of gambling organised for the purposes of profit by private operators in other Member States;

               2.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the promotion of gambling operated on national territory without a licence. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is true of the national legislation at issue in the main actions.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2004 in Case T-256/03: Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung eV and Josef Kloh v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 — Decision 2003/328/EC — Use of catering waste in feed for pigs — Inadmissible)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/16

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 2 July 2004
   in Case T-256/03: Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung eV and Josef Kloh v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 - Decision 2003/328/EC - Use of catering waste in feed for pigs - Inadmissible)
   (2004/C 251/30)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-256/03: Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung eV, established in Bochum (Germany), Josef Kloh, residing in Eichenried (Germany), represented by R. Steiling and S. von Zimmermann-Wienhues, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Braun), with an address for service in Luxembourg — action for the partial annulment of Decision 2003/328/EC of 12 May 2003 on transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of category 3 catering waste in feed for pigs and the intra-species recycling ban on the feeding of swill to pigs (OJ 2003 L 117, p. 46) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A. W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               (2)

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ No C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2004 in Case C-360/02 P: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European Parliament (Appeal — Former member of the European Parliament — Provisional retirement pension scheme — Suspension of payment of the pension following the election of that member as a regional councillor — Action for annulment — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/9

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 29 October 2004
   in Case C-360/02 P: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European Parliament (1)

   (Appeal - Former member of the European Parliament - Provisional retirement pension scheme - Suspension of payment of the pension following the election of that member as a regional councillor - Action for annulment - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2005/C 19/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-360/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 2 October 2002, Carlo Ripa di Meana, former member of the European Parliament, residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy) (lawyers: W. Viscardini and G. Donà), the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci), defendant at first instance – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 29 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Ripa di Meana shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-558/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Portakabin Ltd, Portakabin B.V. v Primakabin B.V. (Trade marks — Keyword advertising on the internet — Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 5 to 7 — Display of advertisements on the basis of a keyword identical with a trade mark — Display of advertisements on the basis of keywords reproducing a trade mark with ‘minor spelling mistakes’ — Advertising for second-hand goods — Goods manufactured and placed on the market by the proprietor of the trade mark — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark — Affixing of labels bearing the name of the reseller and removal of labels bearing the trade mark — Advertising, on the basis of another person’s trade mark, for second-hand goods including, in addition to goods manufactured by the proprietor of the trade mark, goods from another source)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Portakabin Ltd, Portakabin B.V. v Primakabin B.V.
   (Case C-558/08) (1)

   (Trade marks - Keyword advertising on the internet - Directive 89/104/EEC - Articles 5 to 7 - Display of advertisements on the basis of a keyword identical with a trade mark - Display of advertisements on the basis of keywords reproducing a trade mark with ‘minor spelling mistakes’ - Advertising for second-hand goods - Goods manufactured and placed on the market by the proprietor of the trade mark - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark - Affixing of labels bearing the name of the reseller and removal of labels bearing the trade mark - Advertising, on the basis of another person’s trade mark, for second-hand goods including, in addition to goods manufactured by the proprietor of the trade mark, goods from another source)
   2010/C 234/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Portakabin Ltd, Portakabin B.V.

      Defendant: Primakabin B.V.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a), 5(5), 6(1)(b) and (c) and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Right of the proprietor of a trade mark to oppose unlawful use of his trade mark — Use — Concept — Use of the trade mark as a search term for the purpose of carrying out, via a search engine, an internet search for goods covered by that mark — Display of a link to the website of a reseller of goods covered by the trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with, or similar to, that mark, which that advertiser has selected for an internet referencing service without the consent of the proprietor, in relation to goods or services identical to those in respect of which the mark is registered, where that advertising does not enable average internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or from an undertaking economically linked to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

               2.

               Article 6 of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, where use by advertisers of signs identical with, or similar to, trade marks as keywords for an internet referencing service is liable to be prohibited pursuant to Article 5 of that directive, those advertisers cannot, in general, rely on the exception provided for in Article 6(1) in order to avoid such a prohibition. It is, however, for the national court to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, whether or not there was, in fact, a use, within the terms of Article 6(1), which could be regarded as having been made in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

               3.

               Article 7 of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor is not entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising — on the basis of a sign identical with, or similar to, that trade mark, which that advertiser chose as a keyword for an internet referencing service without the consent of that proprietor — the resale of goods manufactured and placed on the market in the European Economic Area by that proprietor or with his consent, unless there is a legitimate reason, within the meaning of Article 7(2), which justifies him opposing that advertising, such as use of that sign which gives the impression that the reseller and the trade mark proprietor are economically linked or use which is seriously detrimental to the reputation of the mark.
               The national court, which must assess whether or not there is such a legitimate reason in the case before it:

                           —

                           cannot find that the ad gives the impression that the reseller and the trade mark proprietor are economically linked, or that the ad is seriously detrimental to the reputation of that mark, merely on the basis that an advertiser uses another person’s trade mark with additional wording indicating that the goods in question are being resold, such as ‘used’ or ‘second-hand’;

                           —

                           is obliged to find that there is such a legitimate reason where the reseller, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark which it uses in the context of advertising for its resale activities, has removed reference to that trade mark from the goods, manufactured and placed on the market by that proprietor, and replaced it with a label bearing the reseller’s name, thereby concealing the trade mark; and

                           —

                           is obliged to find that a specialist reseller of second-hand goods under another person’s trade mark cannot be prohibited from using that mark to advertise to the public its resale activities which include, in addition to the sale of second-hand goods under that mark, the sale of other second-hand goods, unless the sale of those other goods, in the light of their volume, their presentation or their poor quality, risks seriously damaging the image which the proprietor has succeeded in creating for its mark.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109/96, C-110/96, C-111/96 and C-112/96

text:
No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case T-405/10: Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Justice & Environment v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/54

         Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Justice & Environment v Commission
   (Case T-405/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/86
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Justice & Environment (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Černý, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the contested measures (Commission Decisions 2010/135/EU and 2010/136/EU and the response of the Commission C(2010) 4632) null and void.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decisions 2010/135/EU (1) and 2010/136/EU (2) concerning the placing on the market as food and feed of a genetically modified potato product as well as of Commission Decision C(2010) 4632 rejecting the request for internal review lodged by the applicant on the basis of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (3).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
   It claims that in adopting Decisions 2010/135/EU and 2010/136/EU the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU and its obligations under Article 4 (2) of Directive 2001/18/EC (4). In the applicant’s opinion the contested Decisions violate certain general principles of EU law as: the risk assessment made by the Commission was contradictory, the Commission made incorrect interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission made incomplete consideration of evidence and ignored amended law. The applicant further contends that by allowing the placing on the market of a genetically modified potato product the Commission Decision 2010/136/EU also violates Regulation No 1829/2003/EC (5).
   Further, the applicant submits that the Commission Decision C(2010) 4632 is unlawful as it upholds the unlawfulness of the aforementioned two contested Commission Decisions by refusing the request for internal review lodged by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with the principle of good administration of justice and its obligation to properly consider evidence in the administrative decision-making process since it has failed to properly consider the arguments submitted by the applicant in its request for internal review.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (notified under document C(2010) 1193), OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11

      (2)  Commission Decision of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2010) 1196), OJ 2010 L 53, p. 15

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

      (4)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1

      (5)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1


               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/1

         (2007/C 96/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

      OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

      OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

      OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case C-273/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014  — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-273/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland))
   (2014/C 462/10)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 215 of 27.7.2013.


title: Appeal by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo, Udine, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 1995 in Case T-143/89, Ferriere Nord Spa v. Commission of the European Communities (Case C-219/95 P)

text:
12 . 8 . 95                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208/ 15
Action brought on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the                    References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                       d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
                                  Germany                                  20 December 1994 , in the cases of Societe Comateb and
                                                                           Others v. Directeur General des Douanes et Droits
                             ( Case C-191 /95 )
                                                                                Indirects
                               ( 95/C 208/29 )
                                                                                ( Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/30 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the                       European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
European Communities, represented by Jiirgen Grunwald ,                    d'Instance ( District Court ), Paris VII, of 20 December 1994,
of the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for                     which were received at the Court Registry on 1 9 June 1 995 ,
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                  for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Société Comateb,
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            Société Panigua, Société Edouard et Fils , Société de
                                                                           Distribution de Vins et Liqueurs , Société Etablissements
                                                                           André Haan, Société Diffusion Générale de Quincaillerie,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Société Diffusion Générale, Société Cama Renault, Société
                                                                           SCP Ovide et Dorville , Société Ducros Guadeloupe , Société
                                                                           Comptoir Commercial Caraïbes, Société Giafa , Société
1 . declare that, by not providing for appropriate penalties               LVS, Société Catherine et Jean-Claude Tabar Nouval ,
      in cases where companies limited by shares fail to
                                                                           Société L'Heure et L'Or, Société Général Bazar Bricolage,
      disclose their annual accounts, the Federal Republic of              Société Grain d'Or, Société Cash Service, Etablissements
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            Efira, Société Farandole, Société Carat, Société Rio, Société
      Treaty and under First Council Directive 68/ 15 1 /EEC of            Guadeloupéenne de Distribution Moderne, Société
      9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for                Martinique        Automobiles ,      Société     Socovi   Sàrl ,
      the protection of the interests of members and others,               Etablissements Gabriel Vangout et Cie , Sàrl and Société
      are required by Member States of companies within the                Simat Guadeloupe Sàrl v . Directeur Général des Douanes et
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the                 Droits Indirects, on the following question:
      Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
      equivalent throughout the Community (') and Fourth
      Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on                does the fact that a Member State objects to the repayment
      Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g ) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of       of a charge, levied in breach of Community law, on the
      certain types of companies ( 2 );                                    ground that it has been passed on to the purchaser make it
                                                                           virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain
                                                                           reimbursement, where the undertaking concerned is
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                       required by the law of that Member State to incorporate the
      costs .                                                              charge in the cost price of the goods sold ?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Effective implementation of the above Directives requires
that appropriate penalties be provided for within the                      Appeal by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo,
meaning of Article 6 of Directive 68/151 /EEC . The Federal                Udine, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Republic of Germany has so far failed to do so . Although                  6 April 1995 in Case T-143/89 , Ferriere Nord Spa v.
Paragraph 335 ( 6 ) of the Handelsgesetzbuch ( Commercial                          Commission of the European Communities
Code ) provides for a penalty payment, the Registergericht
( Registration Court) does not take any action unless a                                          ( Case C-219/95 P)
member, a creditor or the works council of the company                                               ( 95/C 208/31 )
requests it to do so .
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 April 1 995 by
Because of the lack of legal sanctions and a widespread open               the Court of First Instance in Case T-143 / 89 between
disregard in Germany of Community law disclosure                           Ferriere Nord SpA and the Commission was brought before
requirements, disclosure of company results in that country                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
is abnormally low.                                                         14 June 1995 by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo,
                                                                           Udine, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona , with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .                      Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
( 2 ) OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p . 11 .
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 8 . 95
— grant the forms of order sought at first instance .                 Reference         for    a       preliminary   ruling   from      the
                                                                      Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of
                                                                      14 June 1995 in the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                 P. M. Laumen
                                                                                ( Case C-220/95 )
— Article 85 of the Treaty                                                                          ( 95 /C 208/32 )
   The Court of First Instance affirmed that the agreements           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    in which the appellant participated were intended to              European Communities by a judgment of the
    restrict competition and were likely to impede trade              Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
    between the Member States merely by establishing prices           Amsterdam ) of 14 June 1995 , which was received at the
   and quotas .                                                       Court Registry on 21 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v. P. M. Laumen on
   The Court of First Instance did not take account either of         the following question:
    the Italian version of Article 85 according to which an
                                                                      Must the decision of the English j udge ( 1 ), which in any case
    agreement must have not only as its 'object' but also as
    its 'effect' the prevention of competition, nor of the            relates in part to a maintenance obligation, be regarded as a
    Court's interpretation of that article in the other               decision which relates ( in part ) to rights in property arising
    language versions .
                                                                      out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of
                                                                      indent 1 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
                                                                      Convention even though :
    It is in any event arbitrary, in the appellant's view, to
    hold that all agreements fixing prices and setting quotas         ( a ) the income requirement is capitalized ;
    are ipso facto contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ). In fact, whilst it
    is true that the agreements which directly or indirectly          ( b ) an order was made to transfer the house and the De
    fix prices and which limit outlets have as their object the               Heem painting which, according to the decision, belong
    prevention , restriction or distortion of competition, that               to the husband;
    does not suffice for a finding that they are contrary to
                                                                      ( c ) in his decree , the English judge himself expressly stated
    Article 85 . It is further necessary that they are capable of
                                                                              that he did not regard the marriage settlement as
    affecting trade between Member States . That effect on                    binding;
    trade must also be appreciable . In the appellant's view,
    the contested agreement was not in a position to alter to         ( d ) it cannot be made out from that decree to what extent
    a significant extent trade between Italy and France.                      the factor mentioned in ( c ) influenced the English
                                                                              judge's decision ?
— The wire regime
                                                                      ( ! ) The parties who both have Netherlands nationality, were
                                                                            married in the Netherlands under the regime of common
    In the appellant's view the 'Court of First Instance                    property . They later concluded a marriage settlement whereby
    omitted to examine an important question of law,                        the marriage regime was amended to universal separation of
    namely whether an agreement between producers of a                      property . This severed and divided the community of property.
    finished product (welded steel mesh ) may be deemed                     The parties later settled in London .
    unlawful when the agreement is the necessary
    consequence of mandatory Community rules imposing
    quotas and prices for the semi-finished product
    ( wire ).
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
                                                                      Travail de Tournai by judgment of 6 June 1995 in the case
— Article 15 of Regulation No 17                                      of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
                                                                      Independants (INASTI ) v. Claude Hervein and Herviller
                                                                                SA
    The appellant considers that the Court of First Instance
    did not correctly interpret Article 15 of Regulation                                          ( Case C-221/95 )
    No 17 which gives the Community the power to impose                                              ( 95/C 208/33 )
    fines, that is a discretionary and not a mandatory
    power .                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
    All the arguments relied on by the appellant in support of        Travail de Tournai ( Labour Tribunal , Tournai ) of 6 June
    the legality of the agreement must be considered in order          1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June
    to assess at least whether a fine was justified and whether        1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Institut
    the fine actually imposed satisfied equitable criteria .           National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
    However, the Court of First Instance examined only                Independants v. Claude Hervein and Herviller SA on the
     some of those arguments whilst minimizing others of               following question:
    greater importance .
                                                                       does self-employment ( activite non salariee ) referred to in
                                                                       particular in Article 14a ( 2 ) of CounciURegulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (') refer in particular to the


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-110/03: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (Action for anuulment — Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 — Horizontal State aid — Aid for employment — Legal certainty — Subsidiarity — Proportionality — Coherence of Community action — Non-discrimination — Regulation (EC) No 994/98 — Objection of illegality)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-110/03: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for anuulment - Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 - Horizontal State aid - Aid for employment - Legal certainty - Subsidiarity - Proportionality - Coherence of Community action - Non-discrimination - Regulation (EC) No 994/98 - Objection of illegality)
   (2005/C 132/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-110/03 Kingdom of Belgium (Agents: initially A. Snoecx, and subsequently by E. Dominkovits, assisted D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought before the Court on 10 March 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J. P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: Case T-145/13: Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014  — Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/52

         Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014 — Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance v Commission
   (Case T-145/13) (1)

   2014/C 175/72
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27. 4. 2013.


title: Case T-287/01: Action brought on 20 November 2001 by Bioelettrica S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.2.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 31/15
In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the contested          —     order the Commission to pay to the applicant any amount
decision infringes the principle of equal treatment and thus                    which the Court may deem appropriate by way of
also Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment. The                            compensation for the damage which the applicant has
applicant maintains that, by comparison with the group of                       suffered;
employees entitled to expatriation allowance under Article 17
of the Conditions of Employment, he is being discriminated                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
against, and that that discrimination is not justified.
The applicant argues that the position is not affected by the             Pleas in law and main arguments
fact that Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment is only a
‘temporary solution’ pending the establishment of a European
School in the Frankfurt am Main area. In this phase also, he              The present application seeks a declaration that, by terminating
maintains, he cannot be treated differently from the employees            the Thermie contract, signed on 22 December 1994 bearing
entitled to expatriation allowance.                                       number BM 1007/1994 IT/DE/UL/PO, for the construction of
                                                                          a thermal power station in Italy, fuelled by plant-based biomass
                                                                          based on a fluidised bed air gasifier on a combined cycle, the
                                                                          Commission acted unlawfully. 40 % of the cost of the contract
The applicant finds it incomprehensible that the education                was originally financed by Community contributions. The
allowance is linked to the existence of a right to expatriation           applicant company, which was coordinating the project,
allowance under Article 17 of the Conditions of Employment.               consisted of five of the seven original parties to the contract in
He argues that the purpose of the education allowance is to               question.
enable all-day schooling to take place, and that it is designed
not to benefit the employee but to support the dependent
child by making a contribution to its maintenance costs.                  The decision to terminate was adopted after a number of
                                                                          problems regarding performance of the contract, in particular
                                                                          with regard to the failure of Lurgi Energie, one of the
                                                                          contractors, to contribute technological support which led the
                                                                          defendant to the conclusion that it would be impossible to
                                                                          complete the programme of work of the project within the
                                                                          agreed time limit.
                                                                          In support of its application the applicant puts forward the
Action brought on 20 November 2001 by Bioelettrica                        following pleas in law:
S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties
                                                                          —     failure to give one month’s notice by registered letter;
                        (Case T-287/01)                                   —     failure to notify the termination to all the Contractors;
                                                                          —     infringement of Clause 8(8).2(f) of Annex II to the General
                          (2002/C 31/29)                                        Terms and Conditions of the Contract, inasmuch as that
                                                                                provision provides for the Commission to be able to
                                                                                terminate the contract where the other contracting party
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                              has not commenced work by the date laid down in the
                                                                                contract, bearing in mind that the contract was entered
                                                                                into in December 1994 and that Clause 2.1 of the
                                                                                Contract lays down 1 January 1995 as the date for the
                                                                                commencement of work. According to the applicant, it is
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       unbelievable that the Commission should have taken six
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      years to complain about the failure to commence work;
European Communities on 20 November 2001 by Bioelettrica
S.p.A., represented by Ombretta Fabe Dal Negro,                           —     breach of the general principle of legal certainty with
                                                                                regard to legal relationships with a contractor who may
                                                                                not under any circumstances be subject to unforeseeable
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     or unspecified consequences either as regards the con-
                                                                                ditions which the parties have imposed on themselves or,
                                                                                even less, the applicable legislation. The applicant points
—     find that, by terminating by letter of 6 September
                                                                                out that this is particularly the case inasmuch as the
      2001 the Thermie contract of 12 December 1994 with
                                                                                unforeseen effect arises from the exercise of an arbitrary
      Bioelettrica S.p.A., the Commission has acted unlawfully,
                                                                                power, which is not provided for either under the law or
      and consequently
                                                                                under the contract, to extinguish the existing contractual
                                                                                relationship by withdrawing on the basis of an improper
—     declare the contract valid and effective; and                             and moreover unfounded ground;
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.2.2002
—     failure by the Commission to take into account the fact            —     to order the OHIM to register the trademark ‘Nicole’ for
      that the applicant has fulfilled its obligations under the               goods of class 3 including essential oils, cosmetics, hair
      contract, whereas Clause 2(c) of the General Terms and                   lotions, dentifrices and nail polish.
      Conditions of the Contract expressly provides that a
      contractor is not to be liable for a contractor which does
      not fulfil its obligations if it can show that it has not          Pleas in law and main arguments
      contributed to such failure to fulfil obligations. In that
      regard, the defendant had overrated the obligations
      attaching to the project coordinator;                              Applicant for the Com-         OPI Products Inc.
                                                                         munity trade mark:
—     the defendant disregarded in the present case the duties           The Community trade            The verbal mark ‘Nicole’ for goods
      enshrined in Article 1375 of the Italian Civil Code so far         mark concerned:                in class 3.
      as concerns the principle of good faith and the protection
      of legitimate expectations.                                        Proprietor of the right to     Maxim Marken-Produkte GmbH
                                                                         the trade mark or sign         & Co. KG.
                                                                         asserted by way of oppo-
More generally, the applicant states that the object of the              sition in the opposition
contract in question is not for the supply of a piece of                 proceedings:
equipment or merely white goods, but of a thermal power
station whose technological characteristics should have proved           Trade mark or sign             The national verbal mark ‘Nicole’
to be something new and truly innovative. The applicant                  asserted by way of oppo-       for certain goods in class 3
therefore claims that the Commission’s conduct in the per-               sition in the opposition
formance of the contract should have been quite different to             proceedings:
that adopted, since the defendant was not in actual fact a party
to a synallagmatic contract, but a partner in the full sense of          Decision of the Oppo-          Partial rejection of the Oppo-
the word, sharing the contracting parties’ interest in developing        sition Division:               sition.
technology within the Member States.
                                                                         Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the Decision of the
                                                                         Appeal:                        Opposition Division for ‘dentrific-
                                                                                es’ in class 3 and dismissal of the
                                                                                further appeal by OPI Products
                                                                                Inc.
                                                                         Grounds of claim:              Violation of Article 43(2) of
Action brought on 23 November 2001 by OPI Products                                                      Council Regulation 40/94 in that
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               the proof of the use of the mark
                              Market                                                                    asserted by way of opposition was
                                                                                insufficient. The applicant further
                                                                                claims a violation of article 8(1)b
                         (Case T-288/01)                                                                of Council Regulation 40/94 since
                                                                                there is no likelihood of confusion
                                                                                or similarity of goods.
                          (2002/C 31/30)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-108/00 (1)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 November 2001 by OPI                                                    (2002/C 31/31)
Products Inc., represented by Mr Emmanuel Cornu and Mr Eric
De Gryse of Braun Bigwood SCRL, Brussels (Belgium).                                         (Language of the case: French)
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                         By order of 12 September 2001, the President of the Third
was Maxim Marken-Produkte GmbH & Co. KG.
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Case T-108/00: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
—     annul the decision of the third Board of Appeal in so far
      as it denies registration of the contested CTM application         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
      No 737 510 for the word mark ‘Nicole’ for ‘essential oils,
      cosmetics, hair lotions; including nail polish’ in class 3;


title: Case C-420/05 P: Order of the Court of 15 May 2007 — Ricosmos BV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Customs code — External Community transit operation — Remission of import duties — Conditions — Compliance with time-limits — Compliance with the rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality — Notion of manifest negligence — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/13

         Order of the Court of 15 May 2007 — Ricosmos BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-420/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Customs code - External Community transit operation - Remission of import duties - Conditions - Compliance with time-limits - Compliance with the rights of the defence - Principle of proportionality - Notion of manifest negligence - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
   (2007/C 199/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Ricosmos BV (represented by: J.H. Peek, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 09/00 of 16 November 2001 informing the Netherlands authorities that there were no grounds for remission of import duties in respect of a consignment of cigarettes intended for the Czech Republic on the ground that fraud committed by third parties in the course of an external Community transit operation does not constitute a special situation justifying remission of the import duties
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ricosmos BV is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case F-121/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Spee v Europol (Staff case — Members of the Europol staff — Remuneration — Articles 28 and 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations — Incremental points awarded on the basis of an assessment — Retroactive application of rules — Calculation method)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Spee v Europol
   (Case F-121/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Members of the Europol staff - Remuneration - Articles 28 and 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations - Incremental points awarded on the basis of an assessment - Retroactive application of rules - Calculation method)
   (2008/C 313/98)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: Urban and D. Neumann and, subsequently, by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur and R. van der Hout, lawyers)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Europol decision of 5 July 2006 to grant the applicant only one of the two incremental points provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of Europol.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 84.


title: Case T-442/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana — Action for failure to act — Failure by the Commission to define its position — Obligation to act)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-442/07) (1)

   (State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana - Action for failure to act - Failure by the Commission to define its position - Obligation to act)
   2011/C 331/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and E. Righini, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Air One SpA (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and G. Belotti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to define its position on the applicant’s complaints concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Italian Republic to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana and, second, an alleged infringement of competition law

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each of the parties, including Air One SpA, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case C-539/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2) — Discrimination on grounds of age — Collective labour agreement — Extension of the period of advancement from the first to the second step in the salary scale — Indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
   (Case C-539/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2) - Discrimination on grounds of age - Collective labour agreement - Extension of the period of advancement from the first to the second step in the salary scale - Indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age))
   (2017/C 053/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daniel Bowman

      Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national collective labour agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which an employee who benefits from account being taken of periods of school education for the purpose of his classification in the salary steps is subject to a longer period of advancement between the first and second salary step, as long as that extension applies to every employee benefiting from the inclusion of those periods, including retroactively to those having already reached the next steps.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-315/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Corrado v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/34

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Corrado v Commission
   (Case T-315/08)
   (2008/C 272/63)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Corrado Signorello (Portopalo di Capo Passero, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case F-76/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2013 — Scheidemann v Commission (Civil service — Official — Inter-institutional transfer — Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations — Promotion — Merit points — Equal treatment — Autonomy of the institutions)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2013 — Scheidemann v Commission
   (Case F-76/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Official - Inter-institutional transfer - Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Promotion - Merit points - Equal treatment - Autonomy of the institutions)
   2013/C 352/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sabine Scheidemann (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Commission’s decision concerning the conversion of merit points acquired in another institution and the administrative notice publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Ms Scheidemann to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.09.2012, p.41.


               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/1

         2010/C 346/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 328, 4.12.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 317, 20.11.2010

      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

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


title: Case F-145/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Pierre Bosman v Council of the European Union (Staff case — Former member of the contract staff — Retirement pension — Household allowance — Article 109(3) of the CEOS)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Pierre Bosman v Council of the European Union
   (Case F-145/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Former member of the contract staff - Retirement pension - Household allowance - Article 109(3) of the CEOS)
   (2009/C 6/89)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pierre Bosman (Lebbeke, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and P. Gennari Curlo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Šulce, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision relating to an individual of 28 February 2007 refusing the household allowance for the purposes of the calculation of retirement pension rights, on the basis of Article 109(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bosman to pay all the costs, that is to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008, p. 38.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division Centralan Property Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 20(3) — Capital goods — Deduction of input tax — Adjustments of deductions — Immovable property — Disposal by means of two connected transactions, one exempt, the other taxable — Apportionment)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division Centralan Property Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 20(3) - Capital goods - Deduction of input tax - Adjustments of deductions - Immovable property - Disposal by means of two connected transactions, one exempt, the other taxable - Apportionment)
   (2006/C 36/15)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 21 February 2003, received at the Court on 13 February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Centralan Property Ltd and Commissioners of Customs & Excise — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 20(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a 999-year lease over capital goods is granted to a person against the payment of a substantial premium and the freehold reversion in that property is transferred three days later to another person at a much lower price, and where those two transactions

               —

               are inextricably linked, and

               —

               consist of a first transaction which is exempt and a second transaction which is taxable,

               —

               and if those transactions, owing to the transfer of the right to dispose of those capital goods as owner, constitute supplies within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive,

         the goods in question are regarded, until the expiry of the period of adjustment, as having been used in business activities which are presumed to be partly taxable and partly exempt in proportion to the respective values of the two transactions.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 3.04.2004.


title: Case F-146/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2007 — Speiser v European Parliament (Public service — Temporary agents — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Complaint submitted out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2007 — Speiser v European Parliament
   (Case F-146/06) (1)

   (Public service - Temporary agents - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Complaint submitted out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 269/125)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Michael Alexander Speiser (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Theumer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukosiute and N. Lorenz)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Secretariat of the European Parliament of 11 September 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint regarding refusal to pay the expatriation allowance.
   Operative part of the order
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay one-third of his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the defendant to pay its own costs and two-thirds of the costs of the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 10.3.2007, p. 42.