title: Case C-528/07 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/36

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-528/07 P)
   (2008/C 22/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat and C. O'Daly, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-36/04, API v Commission, of 12 September 2007 in so far as the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's right not to disclose the Commission's pleadings in cases where an oral hearing was yet to be held;

               —

               annul the parts of Commission Decision D(2003) 30621 of 20 November 2003 not previously annulled by the Court of First Instance in Case T-36/04, or in the alternative refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               First, the Court of First Instance erroneously interpreted Article 4(2) 2nd indent of the Regulation (the ‘court proceedings exception’) when it held that the Commission need not carry out a concrete assessment as to whether to give access to its written pleadings before the oral hearing. This interpretation (i) is contrary to well-established principles for interpreting the court proceedings exception that are recognised elsewhere in the Judgment; (ii) is premised on a non-existent right by the Commission to defend its interests ‘free from all external influences’; (iii) relies on manifestly incorrect legal arguments when invoking the ‘equality of arms principle’; (iv) erroneously dismisses the significance of other jurisdictions' rules that allow access to pleadings before the hearing; and (v) wrongly relies on the need to protect the effet utile of the Community courts' in camera procedures.

               2.

               Second, the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the term ‘overriding public interest’ in Article 4(2) in fine of the Regulation by holding that, when written pleadings submitted to the courts are in issue, the general public interest in the content of proceedings before the Community courts is not capable of overriding any interest protected by the court proceedings exception.


title: Case C-316/99: Action brought on 24 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
16.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 299/19
2. Infringement of Directive 76/769/EEC and, in particular,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     of Directive 91/338/EEC: in that it provides, in relation to
     Austria and Sweden, for the power to prohibit the use of
     cadmium otherwise than as provided for in Annex I to              1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the specified
     Directive 91/338/EEC, Directive 1999/51/EC is based on                 period the measures necessary to comply with Directive
     an incorrect interpretation of Directive 76/769/EEC, as                96/43/EC (1) the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     adapted by Directive 91/388/EEC. Directive 76/769/EEC is               fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive;
     exclusively concerned with the uses to which cadmium
     may be put as expressly provided for in Annex I thereto.          2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     National restrictions on the uses to which cadmium may
     be put which are not provided for in Annex I to Directive
     76/769/EEC are permitted in so far as those restrictions
     are compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28      Pleas in law and main arguments
     to 30 thereof.
3. Breach of the principle of legal certainty: Directive               In view of the binding nature of the provisions in Article 249
     1999/51/EC, taken as a whole refers only to the rules             EC, third paragraph, and Article 10 EC, first paragraph,
     applying in Austria and Sweden. Since the Austrian and            Member States are required to implement in their national law
     Swedish rules provide for restrictions on uses of cadmium         a directive addressed to them in such a way that it becomes
     which are not covered by Directive 76/769/EEC, there is a         fully effective when the period set for its implementation
     lack of clarity as to the scope of application of Directive       expires. That period, laid down in Article 4(1) and (2) of the
     76/769/EEC.                                                       Directive, expired on 1 July 1996/1 July 1997, without all
                                                                       the Federal Länder having hitherto adopted the necessary
4. Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of                 provisions.
     reasons: first of all, no reasons are given for the Com-
     mission’s view that the special position of Austria and
     Sweden with regard to the use of cadmium involves an
                                                                       (1) OJ 1996 L 162 of 1.7.1996, p. 1.
     adaptation to technical progress within the meaning of
     Article 2a of Directive 76/769/EEC. Nor are any reasons
     given as to which uses of cadmium are covered by the
     contested derogation. Moreover, no reasons are given as
     to why point 3 in the Annex to Directive 1999/51/EC
     purports to be based on technical progress and the
     existence of less dangerous substitutes. In addition, there
     should have been a statement of the reasons for which the
     Commission has expressly permitted Austria and Sweden,
     but not other Member States such as the Netherlands, to
     apply more rigorous restrictions.                                 Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) OJ 1999 L 142, p. 22.
(2) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 201.                                                                        (Case C-319/99)
(3) OJ 1991 L 186, p. 59.
                                                                                (1999/C 299/23)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 August
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Action brought on 24 August 1999 by the Commission                     Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                 of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          lic of Germany
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-316/99)
                                                                       (1) declare that, by failing to communicate within the pre-
                         (1999/C 299/22)                                    scribed time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                            measures necessary in order to comply with Council
                                                                            Directive 95/47/EC of 24 October 1995 on the use of
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                       standards for the transmission of television signals (1),
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                alternatively by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
ties on 24 August 1999 by the Commission of the European                    order to comply therewith, the French Republic has failed
Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its                  to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                     (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-83/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany)) — Glückauf Brauerei GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt (Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 4(2) — Small independent brewery which is legally and economically independent of any other brewery — Criteria of legal and economic independence — Possibility of being subject to indirect influence)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany)) — Glückauf Brauerei GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt
   (Case C-83/08) (1)

   (Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties - Directive 92/83/EEC - Article 4(2) - Small independent brewery which is legally and economically independent of any other brewery - Criteria of legal and economic independence - Possibility of being subject to indirect influence)
   2009/C 141/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Glückauf Brauerei GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Classification as ‘independent small brewery’ for the purposes of application of reduced rates of duty — Criterion of ‘economic independence’ — Brewery liable, because of shareholdings and the allocation of voting rights, to be indirectly influenced by two other breweries

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a situation characterised by the existence of structural links in terms of shareholdings and voting rights, and which results in a situation in which one individual, performing his duties as manager of a number of the breweries concerned, is able, independently of his actual conduct, to exercise influence over the taking of business decisions by those breweries, prevents them from being considered economically independent of each other.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case T-169/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Arysta Lifescience v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CARPOVIRUSINE — Former national word mark CARPO — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Arysta Lifescience v OHIM
   (Case T-169/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CARPOVIRUSINE - Former national word mark CARPO - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 48/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Arysta Lifescience SAS, formally Calliope SAS (Noguères, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BASF AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2004 (Case R 289/2003-1) relating to the opposition proceedings between Calliope SAS and BASF AG
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.


title: Action brought on 23 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-349/98)

text:
7.11.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/13
Action brought on 23 September 1998 by the Commission                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-349/98)                              Ð annul Articles 3 and 4 of Decision C(1998) 2048 of
                                                                          the Commission of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish
                          (98/C 340/22)
                                                                          system of aid for the purchase of industrial vehicles
                                                                          (Plan Renove Industrial);
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
23 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro of its Legal
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             Ð Infringement of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The measures contained in the Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                          do not constitute aid which is incompatible with the
                                                                          common market, since they do not favour certain
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 undertakings or the production of certain goods and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   do not distort competition; consequently, by adopting
     Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the                    the contested decision, the Commission has infringed
     licensing of railway undertakings (1) and Council                    Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. There exists no
     Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation                 discrimination of any kind based on the nationality of
     of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of               the person acquiring a vehicle; consequently, any
     infrastructure fees (2), the Italian Republic has failed to          national of another Member State is eligible to benefit
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives;                       from the measures provided for in the Plan. The rules
                                                                          laid down by the Plan Renove Industrial do not
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                      provide that the vehicle to be withdrawn from
     proceedings.                                                         circulation must be owned by the recipient of aid
                                                                          under that Plan; the vehicle concerned may be owned
                                                                          by a third party with whom the recipient enters into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       an agreement for that purpose. The fact that the
                                                                          vehicle which is withdrawn must be registered in Spain
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive               does not give rise to any distortion of competition or
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the                     prejudice haulage contractors established outside
Member State to which it is addressed, places Member                      Spain.
States under an obligation to comply with the time-limits
set by directives for their implementation. In the present                Even if, as the Commission maintains, the directives
case, when the time-limits expired on 27 June 1997, the                   on aid to small and medium-sized undertakings (92/
Italian Republic had not adopted the measures necessary                   C 213/02) are not applicable to the haulage sector, it is
to comply with the Directives named in the Commission's                   undeniable that the reason which prompted the
application.                                                              Commission to adopt the de minimis' rule in those
                                                                          directives does not apply in the circumstances of the
(1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.                                         present case, and that aid on such a small scale as that
(2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.                                         paid to recipients under the Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                          does not have any appreciable effect on competition or
                                                                          on trade between Member States. In fact, the analysis
                                                                          carried out in relation to recipients of aid under the
                                                                          Plan reaches the following conclusions:
                                                                          1. A considerable number of recipients of aid under
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Kingdom
                                                                              the Plan carry on haulage activities on such a
of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                              small scale that they do not even require the grant
                           Communities
                                                                              of authorisation by the transport authorities.
                         (Case C-351/98)
                          (98/C 340/23)                                   2. There is a high proportion of type B, C and D
                                                                              vehicles covered by the Plan which are authorised
                                                                              only for private haulage operations.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    3. The weight of the type B, C and D vehicles
the European Communities on 25 September 1998 by the                          authorised for public haulage operations is limited
Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta,                        (43 %), and, of those vehicles, slightly over half
acting as Agent, with an address for service in                               are authorised for haulage on a nation-wide scale,
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4±6 Boulevard E.                           the remainder being authorised only for local
Servais.                                                                      haulage operations.


title: Case C-300/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Consejería de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Construction of certain overhead electrical power lines — Extension of an electrical substation — Project not made subject to an environmental assessment)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Consejería de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU
   (Case C-300/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Construction of certain overhead electrical power lines - Extension of an electrical substation - Project not made subject to an environmental assessment))
   2014/C 151/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Benferri

      Defendants: Consejería de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Interpretation of point 20 of Annex I and section 3(b) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km — Concept — Project to extend an electrical substation independently of the existing overhead power line — National legislation which does not provide for the submission of that project to an environmental assessment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of point 20 of Annex I and section 3(b) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that a project such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which relates only to the extension of an electrical voltage transformer substation, is not, as such, among the projects covered by those provisions, unless that extension is part of the construction of overhead electrical power lines, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-530/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu (Republic of Poland)) — Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w. Poznaniu v Minister Finansów (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(b) and (g) — Place of taxable transactions — Place of supply for tax purposes — Design, hiring out and assembly of fair stands)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu (Republic of Poland)) — Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w. Poznaniu v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-530/09) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(b) and (g) - Place of taxable transactions - Place of supply for tax purposes - Design, hiring out and assembly of fair stands)
   2011/C 370/15
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Determination of the place of taxation — Classification of a given business activity as a service ancillary to cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment or similar activities or as an advertising service — Hiring out of fair stands to exhibitors

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting of the design, temporary provision and, where necessary, the transportation and assembly of a fair or exhibition stand for clients presenting their goods or services at fairs and exhibitions is liable to come within the scope of:

               —

               Article 56(1)(b) of that directive, in the case where that stand is designed or used for purposes of advertising;

               —

               Article 52(a) of that directive, in the case where that stand is designed and provided for a specific fair or exhibition on a cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment or similar theme, or where that stand corresponds to a model in respect of which the organiser of a specific fair or exhibition has prescribed the form, size, material composition or visual appearance;

               —

               Article 56(1)(g) of that directive, in the case where the temporary provision, for payment, of the constituent material elements of that stand constitutes a determining element of that supply.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-571/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Germany v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/41

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-571/08)
   (2009/C 55/74)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2008 in the proceedings ‘State aid C 36/2007 — State aid to Deutsche Post AG’ concerning the information injunction;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is directed against the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C (2008) 6468) of 30 October 2008 by which, in State aid procedure C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007), the Commission required Germany, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), to send all the documents, information and data required in order to assess the costs and revenues of Deutsche Post in the period from 1989 to 2007.
   The applicant raises two pleas in law.
   By the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the information injunction infringes essential rules as to form.

               —

               The requirements as to the valid setting of a time-limit and as to a ‘reminder, allowing an appropriate additional period’ in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 were not satisfied. In the alternative, the applicant observes that the period allowed in the information injunction itself was disproportionate.

               —

               Furthermore, the information injunction does not safeguard the protection enshrined in Article 287 EC of Deutsche Post AG's business secrets, since the data would presumably be passed to an external undertaking — which might also be working for competitors of Deutsche Post AG — for analysis, and the Commission refuses to provide further details in that regard.

         By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the information injunction also infringes Articles 87(1) EC and 86(2) EC in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and legal certainty, since the data requested are not necessary for the assessment in terms of State-aid law of any of the three State measures at issue in the proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-71/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2011 — Federal Republic of Germany v Y

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2011 — Federal Republic of Germany v Y
   (Case C-71/11)
   2011/C 130/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Defendant: Y

      Other parties: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (The Representative of the Federal Interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht); Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten beim Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (The Federal Commissioner for Asylum Matters at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that not every interference with religious freedom which breaches Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes an act of persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC, but that a severe violation of religious freedom as a basic human right arises only if the core area of that religious freedom is adversely affected?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is the core area of religious freedom limited to the profession and practice of faith in the areas of the home and neighbourhood, or can there also be an act of persecution, within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC, in cases where, in the country of origin, the practice of faith in public gives rise to a risk to body, life or physical freedom and the applicant accordingly abstains from such practice?

                           (b)

                           If the core area of religious freedom can also comprise certain religious practices in public:

                                       Does it suffice in that case, in order for there to be a severe violation of religious freedom, that the applicant feels that such practice of his faith is indispensable in order for him to preserve his religious identity,

                                       or is it further necessary that the religious community to which the applicant belongs should regard that religious practice as constituting a central part of its doctrine,

                                       or can further restrictions arise as a result of other circumstances, such as the general conditions in the country of origin?

               3.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
               Is there a well-founded fear of persecution, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83/EC, if it is established that the applicant will carry out certain religious practices — other than those falling within the core area — after returning to the country of origin, even though these will give rise to a risk to body, life or physical freedom, or is the applicant to be expected to abstain from engaging in such religious practices in the future?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case T-48/06: Action brought on  17 February 2006  — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/40

         Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM
   (Case T-48/06)
   (2006/C 86/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Astex Therareutics Limited (Cambridge, United Kingdom) [represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protec Health International Limited (Cirencester, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004 — 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part;

               —

               order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal) and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further, order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Astex Technology’ for goods in class 5 (pharmaceuticals)
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Protec Health International Limited.

      Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Astex’ for goods and services in classes 5 (insecticides for killing dust mites) and 24 (textiles etc.)
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Refuses registration
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismisses the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94.


title: Case T-553/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v OHIM

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/20

         Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v OHIM
   (Case T-553/12)
   2013/C 55/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 October 2012 in Case R 1709/2011-2;

               —

               alter that decision;

               —

               order the General Court of the European Union to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BATEAUX-MOUCHES’ in respect of services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 — Application for registration No 5 666 631

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the trade mark application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

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


title: Case C-110/08: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/43

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-110/08) (1)

   2010/C 63/67

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case C-615/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-84/13: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/24

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-84/13: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission
   (Case C-615/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (represented by: M. Struys, avocat, L. Eskenazi, avocate, A. Fall, advocate, C. Erol, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 in Case T-84/13, Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v. European Commission;

               —

               As a consequence, to annul Articles 2.1 (b) and 2.2(b) of the Commission's decision insofar as they concern the Appellants and to reduce the relevant fines;

               —

               To order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and for the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law. The first two concern the CPT cartel and the last two — the CDT cartel.
   First plea: the General Court failed to address SDI’s plea according to which sales of non-cartelized products should have been excluded from the CPT cartel fine calculation. Even assuming that the General Court’s reasoning regarding the existence of a single and continuous infringement offers an implicit justification for the rejection of SDI’s plea (quod non), such implicit justification violates the Commission’s Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) (the Fining Guidelines).
   Second plea: as regards the determination of the end date of the CPT cartel, the General Court dismissed without any valid reasons SDI’s plea that collusion requires the involvement of at least two undertakings, and further violated Article 101 TFEU insofar as the judgment concluded that SDI’s participation in the CPT cartel lasted, alone, until 15 November 2006. Further, the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment insofar as it refused to reduce the fine imposed on SDI.
   Third plea: the General Court made an error in law by taking into account in the calculation of the CDT cartel fine SDI’s sales to Samsung Electronics Corporation (SEC). The General Court misapplied the concept of EEA sales under the Fining Guidelines insofar as it failed to determine the place where competition takes place.
   Fourth plea: the General Court committed an error of law in assessing the application of the Leniency Notice, which resulted in a failure to grant SDI a 50 % fine reduction in relation to the CDT cartel. The General Court’s conclusions regarding the CPT cartel are legally irrelevant in the context of the CDT cartel. Furthermore, the General Court misapplied the Leniency Notice and erred in upholding the Commission’s finding that the lack of description of the market sharing aspect of the infringement by SDI in its reply to the Statement of Objections could, in itself, impact the assessment of SDI’s cooperation during the administrative procedure.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — M6 and TF1 v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid which the French Republic is intending to grant in favour of France Télévisions — Capital funding of EUR 150 million — Decision not to raise objections — Service of general economic interest — Criterion of proportionality — No serious difficulties)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — M6 and TF1 v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08) (1)

   (State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid which the French Republic is intending to grant in favour of France Télévisions - Capital funding of EUR 150 million - Decision not to raise objections - Service of general economic interest - Criterion of proportionality - No serious difficulties)
   2010/C 221/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: O. Freget, N. Chahid-Nouraï, R. Lazerges and M. Potel, lawyers); and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, and then by G. de Bergues and L. Butel, Agents); and France Télévisions (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther, D. Tayar, A. Giraud and S. Snoeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008 relating to the proposed grant, by the French Republic, of capital funding of EUR 150 million to France Télévisions SA, and applications for an order that the Commission open a formal investigation procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Métropole télévision (M6) to bear its own costs in Case T-568/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case;

               3.

               Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs in Case T-573/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case;

               4.

               The French Republic and Canal + shall each bear their own costs in Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-254/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 24 May 2012 — WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 24 May 2012 — WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni
   (Case C-254/12)
   2012/C 217/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case T-499/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM (Purple rectangle with a rounded side) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a purple rectangle with a rounded side — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM (Purple rectangle with a rounded side)
   (Case T-499/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a purple rectangle with a rounded side - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 269/105
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented initially by S. Stürmann, then by S. Stürmann and G. Schneider, and subsequently by S. Stürmann and R. Manea, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2009 (Case R 491/2009-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a purple rectangle with a rounded side.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-45/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Andreas Kainz AG v Pantherwerke AG

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Andreas Kainz AG v Pantherwerke AG
   (Case C-45/13)
   2013/C 147/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreas Kainz

      Defendant: Pantherwerke AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) to be interpreted, in relation to product liability, as meaning:

                           1.1

                           that the place of the event giving rise to the damage (Handlungsort) is the place where the manufacturer is established;

                           1.2

                           that the place of the event giving rise to the damage (Handlungsort) is the place where the product is put into circulation;

                           1.3

                           that the place of the event giving rise to the damage (Handlungsort) is the place where the product is put into circulation;

               2.

               If Question 1.2 is answered in the affirmative:

                           2.1

                           Is the product put into circulation when it has left the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed?

                           2.2

                           Is the product put into circulation when it is marketed in a structured way to end-users?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-559/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-154/10 France v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/13

         Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-154/10 France v Commission

   (Case C-559/12 P)
   2013/C 32/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter, D. Colas, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2012 in Case T-154/10 France v Commission;

               —

               rule definitively on the dispute in annulling Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C-56/07 (ex E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (1) or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The French Government raises four grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the French Government claims, first, that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court clearly failed to have regard to the meaning of the pleas of that Government when it held that all the pleas put forward were essentially connected to the determination of the existence of an advantage, and not also to the determination of the existence of a transfer of State resources. Secondly, and as a consequence, the General Court infringed Article 44(1)(c) and Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court when it declared inadmissible the argument of the French Government alleging infringement of the condition relating to the existence of a transfer of State resources.
   By its second ground of appeal, the French Government claims that the General Court erred in law when it held that the Commission established to the requisite legal standard the existence of a State guarantee granted to La Poste. In the alternative, that Government claims that the General Court distorted the evidence submitted to it in so far as it held that the evidence put forward by the Commission demonstrated that there was a State guarantee.
   By its third ground of appeal, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law, failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons and, in the alternative, erred in the legal description of the facts, when it rejected the second plea raised by that Government alleging errors of fact and law so far as concerns the existence of an unlimited State guarantee in favour of La Poste. There are four parts to that ground of appeal.
   Firstly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law when it held that the Commission had correctly concluded that French law did not exclude the possibility for the State to grant an implied guarantee to publicly owned industrial and commercial establishments (‘EPIC’).
   Secondly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law when it approved the Commission’s findings concerning the consequences stemming from the application of Law No 80-539 of 16 July 1980 on the penalties imposed in administrative matters and on the execution of judgments by legal entities governed by public law.
   Thirdly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law and failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons when it rejected the branch of that Government’s plea alleging that the Commission erred in so far as it equiparated the conditions for incurring State liability with a guarantee mechanism.
   Fourthly, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted French law when it rejected the branch of that Government’s plea alleging the Commission erred as regards the consequences of any transfer of the obligations of a dissolved EPIC.
   By its fourth and last ground of appeal, the French Government claims that the General Court erred in law when it held that the Commission proved to the requisite legal standard the existence of an advantage which stems from the alleged State guarantee granted to La Poste. In the alternative, the French Government claims that the General Court distorted the evidence submitted to it when it held that the evidence put forward by that Government did not invalidate the Commission’s finding so far as concerns the existence of an advantage.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1


title: Case T-130/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council
   (Case T-130/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 164/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented: initially by G. Collard then S. Zokou, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Marcel Gossio to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-30/08: Order of the President of the Court of 9 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-30/08) (1)

   (2008/C 285/56)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-528/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Growth Delivered — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered)
   (Case T-528/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Growth Delivered - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Information Resources, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Schulte, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1777/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Growth Delivered as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Information Resources, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-19/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 21 January 2008 — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 21 January 2008 — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
   (Case C-19/08)
   (2008/C 64/43)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Kammarrätten i Stockholm
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Migrationsverket

      Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
   Question referred
   Are Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (the Dublin Regulation) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that responsibility for the examination of an application for asylum passes to the Member State where the application was lodged if the transfer is not carried out within six months after a temporary decision has been made to suspend the transfer and irrespective of when the final decision is made on whether the transfer is to be carried out?

      (1)  OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1.


title: Case C-91/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Essent Energie Productie BV; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Essent Energie Productie BV; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Case C-91/13)
   2013/C 147/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Essent Energie Productie BV

      Other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, can a principal contractor which must, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Wet arbeid vreemdelingen 1994 (1994 Netherlands Law on the employment of foreign nationals), be regarded as the employer of the Turkish workers concerned rely, as against the Netherlands authorities, on the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 (1) or on the standstill rule in Article 41 of the Additional Protocol? (2)

               2.

                           (a)

                           Must the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 or the standstill rule in Article 41 of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a prohibition, as referred to in Article 2(1) of the Wet arbeid vreemdelingen 1994, for principal contractors to have work carried out in the Netherlands by workers who are nationals of a third country, in this case Turkey, without a work permit, if those workers are in the employ of a German undertaking and work for the principal contractor in the Netherlands via a Netherlands user undertaking?

                           (b)

                           Is it significant in that regard that an employer was already prohibited, before both the standstill rule in Article 41 of the Additional Protocol and the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 entered into force, from having work carried out by a foreign national without a work permit under a contract of employment and that that prohibition was extended, likewise before the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 entered into force, to user undertakings to which foreign nationals are posted?

      (1)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the EEC-Turkey Association.

      (2)  Signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed by means of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760.72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1).


title: Case C-152/12: Action brought on 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/17

         Action brought on 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-152/12)
   2012/C 174/26
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Vasileva and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the
                     Republic of Bulgaria
                   has infringed its obligations under Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC; (1)

               —

               Order the
                     Republic of Bulgaria
                   to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application of 16 March 2012 the European Commission (‘the Commission’) seeks to obtain a declaration that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC by not basing the charging scheme of the infrastructure manager in Bulgaria on the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC. Also, Bulgaria has not provided information that it based the charges on a scheme which aims at full recovery of the costs, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that directive. For that reason Bulgaria should in any case have complied with the conditions set out in that article.
   The Commission relies on the following essential arguments:

               1.

               By the expression ‘cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service’ are to be understood marginal costs incurred directly as a result of the actual use of the railway infrastructure, that is ‘direct costs’ which arose from a specific train service operation. Accordingly, those are variable costs and dependent on whether the railway infrastructure is used or not. Following that logic, costs arising independently of the actual use of the railway infrastructure could not be regarded as direct costs, even if they concern activities or goods necessary for operating rail traffic on certain routes. Those costs are fixed costs in the sense that they are also incurred when the railway infrastructure is not used.

               2.

               That interpretation is supported by the wording of Article 7(3) which applies to the cost ‘… that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service’. Fixed costs, which are linked to the whole railway infrastructure would not therefore be incurred ‘directly’ as a result of a specific train service operation. The expression ‘incurred directly’ therefore applies to additional costs arising from a specific train service operation. The suggested interpretation is also based on the schematic context of Article 7(3). Article 7 governs the principles of charging whereas Article 8 addresses the possible exceptions to those principles. Article 8(1) refers to ‘full recovery of the costs incurred by the infrastructure manager’ which means that the cost referred to by Article 7(3) cannot be the infrastructure manager’s final costs but must refer to the costs incurred as a result of a specific train service operation, that is to say, lower costs than the final costs. That interpretation is supported by recital 7 in the preamble to Directive 2001/14/EC which encourages optimal use of the railway infrastructure by as many transport undertakings as possible, requiring charges to be kept low.

               3.

               The Commission is of the opinion that the infrastructure manager is to make the infrastructure available to railway undertakings at its own cost, those undertakings having to pay charges equivalent to the direct costs. That can be explained by the need to make the railway infrastructure more attractive for use by a large number of railway undertakings and to increase its optimal use by each one of them. It is possible to apply Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC only when the conditions laid down in that article are fulfilled: for all market segments, in respect of which the infrastructure manager wishes to levy mark-ups, it must establish whether they could bear such mark-ups. That interpretation follows from the wording of the first subparagraph of Article 8(1), in particular from the formulation ‘if the market can bear this …’, and from the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) which reads: ‘The level of charges must not, however, exclude the use of infrastructure by market segments which can pay at least the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the railway service, ….’

               4.

               The complete analysis of the costs and income of the Bulgarian infrastructure manager for the years 2005-2008 shows that 60 % to 70 % of the direct operating costs budgeted for in Bulgaria were based on fixed elements, in particular employment charges and social security payments. In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission comes to the conclusion that those costs cannot be regarded as direct cost within the meaning of Article 7(3), because they did not vary according to use of the train service. Thus the income from the infrastructure charges greatly exceeds the general direct operating costs. The Commission therefore concludes that the charges in Bulgaria were not only framed on the basis of costs incurred directly as a result of operating the train service.

               5.

               On the basis of the information received, the Commission finds that the method used in Bulgaria for levying charges for the use of the railway infrastructure is not clearly in accordance with the concept of direct cost within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC.

      (1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1).


title: Case T-360/13: Action brought on 8 July 2013 — VECCO and Others v Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/45

         Action brought on 8 July 2013 — VECCO and Others v Commission
   (Case T-360/13)
   2013/C 260/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) (Memmingen, Germany) and 185 others (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Declare that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 Amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p. 1) is partially unlawful as it is based on a manifest error of assessment and violates Article 58(2) of REACH, the principle of proportionality and the right of defence (including the principles of sound administration and excellence of scientific advice);

               —

               Partially annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 insofar as it does not contain in its Annex at row 16, fifth column, under the title ‘Exempted categories of use’, the following exemption: ‘use of chromium trioxide for production purposes in aqueous solution, thereby complying with an exposure value of maximum 5μg/m3 (or 0,005 mg/m3)’ or similar language aimed at exempting the ‘use of chromium trioxide in electroplating, etching processes, electropolishing and other surface treatment processes and technologies as well as mixing,’ or words to that effect from the scope of the contested act;

               —

               Order the defendant to amend Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 so as to comply with the Court’s judgment; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 is unlawful as it is based on a number of manifest errors of appraisal and must be annulled insofar as it does not contain an exemption from authorisation in respect of the use of chromium trioxide in the chromium plating industry.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 is based on an underlying assessment of occupational risk related to the use of chromium trioxide in chromium plating that is scientifically and legally flawed (manifest error of appraisal).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 infringes Article 58(2) of REACH and the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants were not granted access to key documents that formed the basis of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 and therefore the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and principles of sound administration and excellence of scientific advice.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 April 2001 in Case T-172/00: Jean-Pierre Pierard v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Posting linked to membership of the Staff Committee — Applicant not immediately re-assigned to his original post on the expiry of his term of office — Action partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 227/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Genoese port authorities and the Compagnia Unica Lavoratori
                                                                           Merci Varie — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                           of 2 May 2001                                   composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
                                                                           J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
in Case T-104/00: Giovanni Cubeta v Commission of the                      20 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                           1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Officials — Transfer to a new place of employment —                       2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred
Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowances —                          by the Commission.
                       Conditions of grant)
                          (2001/C 227/34)                                  (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-104/00: Giovanni Cubeta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
represented by C. Moreau and P. Birden, avocats, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the
applicant, first, an installation allowance in a sum equivalent                                     of 24 April 2001
to two months’ basic salary and, second, daily subsistence
allowances — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:                    in Case T-172/00: Jean-Pierre Pierard v Commission of
A. Potocki); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Regis-                            the European Communities (1)
trar, has given a judgment on 2 May 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                (Officials — Posting linked to membership of the Staff
                                                                           Committee — Applicant not immediately re-assigned to his
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          original post on the expiry of his term of office — Action
                                                                           partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                                              unfounded)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-172/00: Jean-Pierre Pierard, an official of the
                        of 20 March 2001                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                           Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by J. Lombart
in Case T-59/00: Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa v                        and E. Boigelot, avocats, with an address for service in
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                          Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) — application, first,
                                                                           for annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission
(Actions for annulment — Competition — Port services
                                                                           rejecting the applicant’s request that he be re-assigned to his
— Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Preparatory act —
                                                                           original service on the expiry of his term of office as a member
                           Inadmissibility)
                                                                           of the Staff Committee and, second, for compensation for the
                                                                           non-material damage allegedly suffered — the Court of
                          (2001/C 227/35)                                  First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
                                                                           President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         Registrar, made an order on 24 April 2001, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
In Case T-59/00: Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa, estab-
                                                                           1.    The action is dismissed;
lished in Genoa (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Michele
Giacomini and Barbara Della Barile, lawyers, with an address               2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and L. Pignataro) —
application for annulment of the alleged decision of the                   (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
Commission of 22 December 1999 rejecting the complaint
lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that Articles 82
EC and 86(1) EC were infringed by the Italian Republic, the


title: Case T-265/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Elmaghraby v Council

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/19

         Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Elmaghraby v Council
   (Case T-265/11)
   2011/C 219/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahmed Alaeldin Amin Abdelmaksoud Elmaghraby (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Lööf, Barrister, and M. O'Kane, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63);

               —

               Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), implementing Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages in sum of EUR 5 000; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU is an erroneous and/or insufficient legal basis for Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, as:

                           —

                           The aforementioned Decision does not pursue a foreign policy objective;

                           —

                           The adoption of such Decision (and of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011) constitutes an abuse of power; and

                           —

                           The inclusion of the applicant in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (and the corresponding Regulation) was irrational.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates his right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a direct result of the adoption of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, which fall to be made good by the Union.


title: Case T-243/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — International Brands Germany v OHIM — Stuffer (ALOHA 100 % NATURAL)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/28

         Action brought on 29 May 2012 — International Brands Germany v OHIM — Stuffer (ALOHA 100 % NATURAL)
   (Case T-243/12)
   2012/C 217/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Paderborn, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M. Hoffmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stuffer SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in case R 1058/2011-1 and reject the opposition;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘ALOHA 100 % NATURAL’ for goods in Class 32 — application No 7 050 701

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Stuffer SpA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘ALOA’ for goods in Class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 January 2000 in Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P: Kingdom of the Netherlands and Gerard van der Wal v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Access to information — Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Scope of the exception relating to protection of the public interest — Inadequate statement of reasons — Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Principles of equality between the parties and rights of the defence)

text:
C 63/8                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.3.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 January 2000
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P: Kingdom of
                       of 16 December 1999                                 the Netherlands and Gerard van der Wal v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case C-138/99: Commission of the European Communi-                      (Appeal — Access to information — Commission Decision
            ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                           94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Scope of the exception relating
                                                                           to protection of the public interest — Inadequate statement
                                                                           of reasons — Article 6 of the European Convention for the
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms —
Directive 94/56/EC — Air transport — Civil aviation —                      Principles of equality between the parties and rights of the
  Investigation of accidents and incidents — Transposition)                                                defence)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/15)
                           (2000/C 63/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P: Kingdom of the
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Netherlands (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and C. Wissels) and Gerard
                                                                           van der Wal, residing in Crainhem, Belgium, represented by
                                                                           L.Y.J.M. Parret, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
In Case C-138/99: Commission of the European Communities                   the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue — appeal against the
(Agent: F. Benyon) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                     judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing             19 March 1998, in Case T-83/96 Van der Wal v Commission
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions               [1998] ECR II-545, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of                     the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles                   European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and U. Wölker) —
governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and                the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
incidents (OJ 1994 L 319, p. 14), the Grand Duchy of                       J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                 L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moit-             G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas,
inho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                      Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
(Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate           given a judgment on 11 January 2000, in which it:
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
16 December 1999, in which it:                                             1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                European Communities of 19 March 1998 in Case T-83/96
                                                                                Van der Wal v Commission;
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November                  2. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 29 March 1996 refusing
    1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the                  access to certain documents;
    investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, the Grand
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under         3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
    that directive;                                                             costs relating to both sets of proceedings;
                                                                           4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs, as
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                       intervener in Case T-83/96, in the proceedings before the Court
                                                                                of First Instance and, as intervener in Case C-189/98 P, in these
                                                                                proceedings.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Case T-535/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/32

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)
   (Case T-535/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 191/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 (Case R 2470/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ÏD Group and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case T-345/08: Action brought on 22 August 2008 — Helena Rubinstein v OHIM — Allergan (BOTOLIST)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/42

         Action brought on 22 August 2008 — Helena Rubinstein v OHIM — Allergan (BOTOLIST)
   (Case T-345/08)
   (2008/C 272/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Helena Rubinstein, SNC (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 863/2007-1;

               —

               Dismiss the appeal filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the defendant taken on 28 March 2007 in case 1118 C;

               —

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

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘BOTOLIST’ for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark registration No 2 686 392

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 2 015 832 of the figurative mark ‘BOTOX’ for goods in class 5; Community trade mark registration No 2 575 371 of the figurative mark ‘BOTOX’ for goods in class 5; Community trade mark registration No 1 923 986 of the figurative mark ‘BOTOX’ for goods in class 5 and 16; Community trade mark registration No 1 999 481 of the word mark ‘BOTOX’ for goods in class 5; various registrations of the trade mark ‘BOTOX’ in the Member States of the European Communities.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no proof that the earlier trade marks had reputation in the relevant point in time, as the conflicting trade marks are not sufficiently similar, as there is further no proof that the use of the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity would be detrimental to the distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier trade marks and that there is no proof that the applicant acted without due cause when adopting the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity; infringement of Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the contested decision does not state the reasons on which it is based.


title: Case C-582/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 11 November 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Gerrit van Vemde

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 11 November 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Gerrit van Vemde
   (Case C-582/15)
   (2016/C 027/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Gerrit van Vemde

      Question referred

   Must the first sentence of Article 28(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (1) be understood as meaning that the declaration referred to therein may relate only to judgments issued before 5 December 2011, irrespective of when those judgments became final, or must that provision be understood as meaning that the declaration may relate only to judgments which became final before 5 December 2011?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).