title: Case T-43/02: Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Jungbunzlauer AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 97/16                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
The defendant has also established the existence of a second             Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Jungbunzlauer
agreement, concerning beers sold under distributors’ brand               AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
names, concluded between Interbrew, Alken-Maes, Haacht and                                               ties
Martens, involving market-sharing and collusion in respect of
price-fixing. As regards that second agreement, the contested
decision does not censure the applicant in relation to the acts                                    (Case T-43/02)
of its former subsidiary, since it was not involved therein.
                                                                                (2002/C 97/30)
The applicant does not challenge the basic findings underlying
the contested decision. In support of its claims, it puts forward                           (Language of the case: German)
the following pleas in law and main arguments:
—     The Commission has infringed the principles of propor-
      tionality and equal treatment by taking the sum of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      25 million EUR as the ‘basic amount’ of the fine.                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 February 2002 by Jungbunzlau-
                                                                         er AG, of Basle (Switzerland), represented by R. Bechtold,
—     The decision is factually unfounded, inasmuch as it finds          M. Karl and U. Soltész, lawyers.
      that the infringement lasted from 28 January 1993 to
      28 January 1998. In so finding, the Commission applied
      too high a multiplier to the amount of the fine.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     The decision is factually unfounded in so far as it finds          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001
      that the applicant forced Interbrew to participate in the                (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid);
      agreement.
                                                                         —     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of the
—     The decision is unfounded in law and in fact, in that there              decision;
      was no justification for increasing the fine on account of
      the fact that the applicant had already been found on two
      earlier occasions to have acted unlawfully. In that regard,        —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      the Commission has infringed the principles of ‘nulla
      poena sine lege’, ‘ne bis in idem’ and legal certainty.
—     The decision is unfounded in law and in fact, inasmuch
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      as it reduces the fine by only 10 % on account of
      mitigating circumstances. It omitted to take into account
      the influence of the price control system and the tradition
      of concerted practices in the brewing sector, the fact that        The subject-matter of the dispute is the Commission’s decision
      the agreement had no effect on the market, the dependent           of 5 December 2001 (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid)
      situation of Alken-Maes by comparison with the domi-               in which the Commission found that the applicant and
      nant position occupied by Interbrew, the financial difficul-       four other undertakings had infringed Article 81(1) EC and
      ties facing Alken-Maes and the crisis situation prevailing         Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in that they had participated
      during the period in question.                                     in a continuing agreement and/or a concerted practice in the
                                                                         citric acid sector. A fine of EUR 17,64 million was imposed on
                                                                         the applicant.
—     The decision is unfounded in law and in fact, inasmuch
      as it finds that the applicant contested the facts alleged
      against it. In that respect, the applicant should have been
      entitled to a substantial reduction in the fine.                   First, the applicant claims that the decision was directed to the
                                                                         wrong addressee. The decision should, in fact, have been
                                                                         directed to Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GesmbH, an associate
                                                                         company of the applicant.
The applicant company also pleads violation of its rights of
defence and failure on the part of the Commission to comply
with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Commission did not adequately
                                                                         establish the actual effects on the market and that it refused to
                                                                         take into account, in the applicant’s favour, the fact that
                                                                         Jungbunzlauer Gesmbh played a special role in the cartel.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.4.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 97/17
In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission, when             The applicant claims that the Court should:
fixing the amount of the fine, failed to take account of the size
of the undertakings concerned, and that it imposed two
separate fines on the applicant in the ‘citric acid’ and ‘sodium        —     annul the contested decision C(2001) 3693 final of the
gluconate’ cases (1), although both products belong to the same               Commission of the European Communities of 11 Decem-
family of products and it would have been proper to deal with                 ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank
them together. The applicant submits that the fine imposed on                 charges for currency exchange within the Euro zone —
the applicant is highly excessive and that the Commission                     Germany, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant;
applied the 10 % maximum prescribed by Article 15(2) of
Regulation 17/62 in different ways in cases based on similar
                                                                        —     alternatively, cancel or, in the further alternative, reduce
facts, which severely prejudiced the applicant’s position. That
                                                                              the fine imposed on the applicant;
course of action violated the principle of proportionality, the
Commission’s guidelines, and its own practice. Moreover, that
method results in discrimination against small and medium-              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
sized undertakings, and therefore violates the general principle
of equal treatment and the principle of the individual assess-
ment of fines.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant further claims that, when calculating the fine,
the Commission refused to take into account the fact that fines
had already been imposed in the USA and Canada in respect
of the same state of affairs, which amounts to an error of              The applicant is contesting the defendant’s decision C(2001)
assessment.                                                             3693 of 11 December 2001, adopted in a procedure under
                                                                        Article 81 of the EC Treaty concerning Case COMP/E-1/37.919
                                                                        (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for currency exchange within the
Finally, the applicant submits that its right to be heard in            Euro zone — Germany.
accordance with the law has been violated, since the Com-
mission did not give it access to the entire investigation file. In
addition, due to the protracted length of the procedure, the
lawful growth of the undertaking had a detrimental effect on            The contested decision of the defendant of 11 December 2001,
the applicant by increasing the potential range of the fine.            which was notified in Hamburg, Germany, on 19 December
Moreover, as a result of the slow conduct of the procedure, the         2001, is unlawful.
applicant was subject to the new, significantly harsher, practice
of the Commission in the imposition of fines.
                                                                        It constitutes an infringement of the EC Treaty and of the
(1) See Commission Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001        rules of law relating to its application (second paragraph of
    which is being contested by the applicant in Case T-312/01          Article 230 of the EC Treaty), and should therefore be annulled.
    Jungbunzlauer v Commission (not yet published).                     The defendant bases its decision on an incorrect view of the
                                                                        facts. The applicant participated only by chance in the
                                                                        decisive foreign exchange dealers’ meeting which took place
                                                                        on 15 October 1997. That meeting did not fulfil the criteria
                                                                        for an agreement in restraint of competition within the
                                                                        meaning of Article 81 of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Vereins- und
Westbank AG against the Commission of the European                      The defendant’s contrary findings were based on an insufficient
                           Communities                                  and prejudiced ascertainment of the facts, and on a grossly
                                                                        erroneous assessment of the evidence.
                          (Case T-54/02)
                          (2002/C 97/31)                                The administrative procedure did not correspond to the
                                                                        requirements of Community law, inasmuch as the applicant’s
                                                                        rights of defence, its right to a fair hearing and its right to
                  (Language of the case: German)                        inspect the file were consistently infringed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Moreover, the decision was reached in a manner which
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              infringed essential procedural requirements within the mea-
European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Vereins- und                ning of the second paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty;
Westbank AG, of Hamburg, represented by Josef Lothar                    in particular, the defendant failed to give a sufficient statement
Schulte, Michael Ewen and Alexandra Neus, lawyers.                      of reasons for the decision.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 1996 in Case C-278/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality - Children of migrant workers - Social advantages - Young people seeking first employment - Access to special employment programmes)

text:
No C 354/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23 . 11 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       by Article 51 of the EEC (now the EC) Treaty, implies
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main
                                                                          proceedings, calculation of the average basis for
                    of 12 September 1996                                  contributions rests solely on the amount of
in Case C-251 /94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from               contributions paid under the legislation concerned, and
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad                         the theoretical amount of the benefit thus obtained is to
Autónoma del País Vasco ): Eduardo Lafuente Nieto v.                      be duly revalorized and increased as if the person
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( INSS ) and                    concerned had continued to work under the same
    Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social ( TGSS )( ] )                conditions in the Member State in question.
(Social security — Invalidity — Articles 46 and 47 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Calculation of
                               benefits)                              3 . Article 46 (2) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 does
                                                                          not cover the calculation of invalidity benefits under a
                           ( 96/C 354/06 )                                scheme such as that provided for by Spanish legislation,
                                                                          whereby the amount of benefit does not depend on the
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                            length of the insurance periods.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-251 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la
Comunidad Autonoma del Pais Vasco [High Court of
Justice of the Basque Autonomous Community] ( Spain ) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Eduardo Lafuente Nieto and Instituto                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( INSS ) and Tesoreria                                        ( Fifth Chamber )
General de la Seguridad Social ( TGSS ) — on the
interpretation and validity of Article 47 ( 1 ) of Council                                of 12 September 1996
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                  in Case C-278/94 : Commission of the European
application of social security schemes to employed persons,                     Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( ] )
to self-employed persons and to members of their families             (Failure ofa Member State to fulfil its obligations — Indirect
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                discrimination on grounds of nationality — Children of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ            migrant workers — Social advantages — Young people
No L 230 , 1 983 , p. 6 ) and as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII ,      seeking first employment — Access to special employment
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                                         programmes)
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/07 )
adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ No L 302 , 1985 , p. 170 ),
and on the interpretation of Article 46 ( 2 ) of that regulation
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet                                  (Language of the case: French)
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A.
La Pergola , Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1996 , in which it rules :                                                    published in the European Court Reports)
1 . Article 47 ( 1 ) (e) of Council Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-278/94 : Commission of the European
    No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial            Communities ( Agent: M. Wolfcarius ) v. Kingdom of
    security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed            Belgium ( Agents : J. Devadder and C. Deneve ) — application
    persons and to members of their families moving within            for a declaration that, by requiring that young people
    the Community, as amended and updated by Council                  seeking their first employment have completed their
    Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and as                secondary education in an establishment subsidized or
    adapted by Annex 1, Part VIII of the Act concerning the           approved by the Belgian State ( or by one of its communities )
    conditions ofaccession of the Kingdom of Spain and the            in order to be eligible for tideover allowances, and by
    Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the                    encouraging employers at the same time to take on
     Treaties, covers a system for calculating invalidity             beneficiaries of those unemployment allowances by
    benefits on an average basis for contributions, as laid           providing for the State to assume responsibility in such a
    down by the Spanish legislation .                                 case for the remuneration and social security contributions
                                                                      for such workers if they are wholly unemployed and on
                                                                      benefit, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
2 . Article 47 (1 ) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ,              obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 3
    interpreted in accordance with the objective laid down            and 7 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96           I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 354/5
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                      Council Directive 91 / 1 56/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
within the Community ( Official Journal, English Special                Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p. 32 )
Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ), — the Court ( Fifth Chamber )            — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O.
composed of: D.A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                  Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur )
J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L.            and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ;
Sevon, Judges ; Advocate-General : D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,              R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 September 1996 ,
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a               the operative part of which is as follows :
judgment on 12 September 1996 , in which it:
                                                                        Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
 1 . declares that, by requiring that dependent children of             Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member
      migrant workers of the Community residing in Belgium              State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance
      have completed their secondary education in an                    with the obligations laid down by Council Directive
      establishment subsidized or approved by the Belgian               91 / 1 56/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
      State or by one of its communities in order to be eligible        75/442/EEC on waste, provided that th.ose penalties are
     for tideover allowances, the Kingdom of Belgium has                analogous to those applicable to infringements of national
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EC       law ofa similar nature and importance and are, in any event,
      Treaty and Article 7 ofRegulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of             effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
      the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
      movement for workers within the Community;                        (') OJ   No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                            OJ   No C 137,  3 . 6 . 1995 ,
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                             OJ   No C 159,  24 . 6 . 1995 ,
                                                                            OJ   No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 351 , 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 17 September 1996
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   in Joined Cases C-246/94 , C-247/94 , C-248/94 and
                            (First Chamber)                             C-249/94 ( references for preliminary rulings from the Corte
                                                                        Suprema di Cassazione ): Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica
                        of 12 September 1996                            S. Antonio and Others v . Amministrazione delle Finanze
in Joined Cases C-58/95 , C-75/95 , C-l 12/95 , C-l 19/95 ,                                           dello Stato ( 1 )
C-123/95 , C-135 /95 , C-140/95 , C-141 /95 , C-154/95 and               (Commission Regulations (EEC) No 612/77 and (EEC)
C-157/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the                  No 1384/77 — Special import arrangements in respect of
Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli              certain young male bovine animals for fattening — Council
 and Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ): Criminal                                  Directive 79/623/EEC)
      proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Others ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/09 )
 (Approximation of laws — Waste — Directive
                              91/156/EEC)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                             ( 96/C 354/08 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Joined Cases C-246/94 , C-247/94 , C-248/94 and
           published in the European Court Reports)                      C-249/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione [ Court of
 In Joined Cases C-58/95 , C-75/95 , C-l 12/95 , C-l 19/95 ,             Cassation ] for preliminary rulings in the proceedings
 C-123/95 , C-135/95 , C-140/95 , C-141 /95 , C-154/95 and               pending before that court between Cooperativa Agricola
 C-157/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of the              Zootecnica S. Antonio and Others and Amministrazione
 EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma , Sezione              delle Finanze dello Stato — on the interpretation of Council
 Distaccata di Tivoli and Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo              Directive 79/623/EEC of 25 June 1979 on the har
 di Porto [District Magistrate's Court, Rome , Tivoli Division           monization of provisions laid down by law , regulation or
 and Castelnuovo di Porto Divisioni for a preliminary ruling             administrative action relating to customs debt ( OJ No
 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court                   L 179 , 1979 , p. 31 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC )
 against Sandro Gallotti, Roberto Censi , Giuseppe Salmaggi ,            No 612/77 of 24 March 1977 laying down rules for the
 Salvatore Pasquire , Massimo Zappone, Francesco Segna                   application of the special import arrangements in respect of
 and Others, Cesare Cervetti, Mario Gasbarri , Isidoro                   certain young male bovine animals for fattening ( OJ No
 Narducci and Fulvio Smaldone on the interpretation of                   L 77, 1977, p. 18 ), as amended by Commission Regulation


title: Case T-243/09: Action brought on 18 June 2009 — Fedecom v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/43

         Action brought on 18 June 2009 — Fedecom v Commission
   (Case T-243/09)
   2009/C 205/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération de l’Organisation Économique Fruits et Légumes (Fedecom) (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Galvez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009, (1) by which the Commission had declared incompatible with the common market the State aid granted by the French Republic to fruit and vegetable producers in the context of ‘contingency plans’ aimed at facilitating the marketing of agricultural products harvested in France and had instructed the French Republic to recover the aid in question.
   In support of its claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:

               —

               disregard of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, since the Commission took the view that the voluntary contributions paid by the producers in the context of contingency plans (sectoral contributions) constitute State aid;

               —

               disregard of the provisions of Article 87(3) EC, since, without carrying out an in-depth analysis of each contingency plan, the Commission took the view that the measures implemented as part of the contingency plans were not compatible with the common market;

               —

               breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the Commission’s lack of action for a period of 10 years, when it must of necessity have been aware of the existence of the contingency plans, gave rise to expectations on the part of the producers as to the regularity of the contingency plans.

      (1)  OJ L 127, p. 11.


title: Case C-390/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni
   (Case C-390/09)
   2009/C 312/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Reti Televisive Italiane SpA. (RTI)

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 18 and 18a of Directive 89/552/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, (2) to be regarded as being sufficiently precise and unconditional as to be capable, after the period for transposition has expired, of taking precedence over conflicting provisions of domestic law, of supplementing, on a correct interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, the relevant national provisions, and of being implemented by an administrative authority, such as AGCOM, which is invested with the power to implement regulations under national law?

               2.

               Are Articles 18 and 18a of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the mandatory minimum duration of 15 minutes applicable to teleshopping windows, any other form of teleshopping, including windows lasting more than 3 minutes but less than 15 minutes, must be classified as a “teleshopping spot” subject to the hourly limits applicable to advertising spots?

               3.

               Are Articles 1(c), 10, 11 and 18(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that announcements made by a broadcaster in connection with its own programmes and broadcast free of charge are to be regarded as advertising for the purposes of the rules governing the way in which messages are distinguished from the rest of the programme and advertising inserted in television broadcasts?

               4.

               Are Articles 1(c), 10, 11 and 18(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the institutional information and communication activities referred to in Italian Law No 150 of 7 June 2000, including messages of social value and messages of public interest, are to be regarded as advertising for the purposes of the rules governing the way in which advertising messages are distinguished from the rest of the programme and advertising inserted in television broadcasts?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 265, p. 42.


title: Case T-86/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/58

         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
   (Case T-86/15)
   (2015/C 138/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle — Application for registration No 1 2 2 18  418

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 1795/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

               —

               allow the community trade mark application No. 1 2 2 18  418 to proceed to publication; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-416/06: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2011 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/27

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2011 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission
   (Case T-416/06) (1)

   2011/C 89/53
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-435/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Danjaq v OHIM — Mission Productions (Dr. No) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Dr. No — Opposition by the proprietor of the non-registered word marks and signs Dr. No and Dr. NO — Failure to satisfy the requirement for earlier marks — Lack of a distinctive sign used in the course of trade — Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Danjaq v OHIM — Mission Productions (Dr. No)
   (Case T-435/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Dr. No - Opposition by the proprietor of the non-registered word marks and signs Dr. No and Dr. NO - Failure to satisfy the requirement for earlier marks - Lack of a distinctive sign used in the course of trade - Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 193/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Danjaq LLC (Santa Monica, California, United States) (represented by: G. Hobbs QC, G. Hollingworth, Barrister, S. Skrein and L. Berg, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Mission Productions Gesellschaft für Film-, Fernseh- und Veranstaltungsproduktion mbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Lewinsky, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2005 (Case R 1118/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Danjaq LLC and Mission Productions Gesellschaft für Film-, Fernseh- und Veranstaltungsproduktion mbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Danjaq LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-517/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA v Province of Namur (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 97/13/EC — Articles 4 and 11 — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 6 — Conditions which may be attached to the general authorisation and to the rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers, and specific obligations — Article 13 — Fee for the rights to install facilities — Scope — Provincial legislation — Charge on mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA v Province of Namur
   (Case C-517/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 97/13/EC - Articles 4 and 11 - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 6 - Conditions which may be attached to the general authorisation and to the rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers, and specific obligations - Article 13 - Fee for the rights to install facilities - Scope - Provincial legislation - Charge on mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units))
   (2016/C 068/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA

      Defendant: Province of Namur

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 6 and 13 of 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) must be interpreted as not precluding a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, being imposed on any natural or legal persons operating mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-617/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-496/07 Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/16

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-496/07 Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission
   (Case C-617/13 P)
   2014/C 24/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, S.A., Repsol Petróleo, S.A. and Repsol, S. A. (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J.L. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan, Á. Givaja Sanz and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in relation to:

                           —

                           the attribution of joint and several liability for the infringement to Repsol Petróleo, S.A. and Repsol YPF, S.A. (currently Repsol, S.A.)

                           —

                           the incorrect taking into consideration of the period from 1998 to 2002 for the purposes of calculating the amount of the fine.

                           —

                           the incorrect taking into account by the General Court of the basic amount of the fine set by the Commission as a result of that Court’s failure to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and breach of the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Annul the contested decision to that effect.

               3.

               Reduce, under its unlimited jurisdiction, the amount of the fine in the amount which it considers appropriate.

               4.

               Declare the duration of the judicial proceedings before the General Court excessive and unjustified, in breach of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of ECHR).

               5.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               First, Repsol alleges an error in law in relation to the methodology used in the judgment to assess the evidence submitted in support of the full and effective commercial independence of the subsidiary company Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, S.A. or, alternatively, a failure to state the reasons.

               2.

               Secondly, Repsol submits that the judgment errs in its interpretation of the leniency notice of 2002.

               3.

               Thirdly, Repsol submits that the judgment infringes Article 261 TFEU and the principle of proportionality, as a result of the General Court’s failure to carry out a full review, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, of the penalties in the field of competition.

               4.

               Finally, Repsol alleges breach by the General Court of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to dispose of the case within a reasonable time.

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1


title: Case T-155/12: Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Schulze v OHIM — NKL (Klassiklotterie)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/31

         Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Schulze v OHIM — NKL (Klassiklotterie)
   (Case T-155/12)
   2012/C 165/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hans Gerd Schulze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie (Hamburg)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 January 2012 (Appeal R 600/2011-4), in so far as that decision refused registration of the mark ‘Klassiklotterie’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Klassiklotterie’ for goods and services in Classes 28, 35 and 41 (Application No 8 554 354).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘NKL-Klassiklotterie’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 (Mark No 2 904 650).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.


title: Case C-6/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by decision of that court of 17 November 2004 in Medipac — Th. Kazantzidis A.E. v Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.I. Kritis)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by decision of that court of 17 November 2004 in Medipac — Th. Kazantzidis A.E. v Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.I. Kritis)
   (Case C-6/05)
   (2005/C 69/14)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, Greece) of 17 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 5 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Medipac — Th. Kazantzidis A.E. and Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.I. Kritis) on the following questions:

               (1)

               Whenever tender procedures governed by Council Directive 93/36/EEC for the supply of medical devices under Directive 93/42/EEC are conducted under the lowest-tender system, is the contracting authority as the purchaser of the relevant goods able, in accordance with Directive 93/42, interpreted in conjunction with Directive 93/36, to reject a tender for medical devices which bear the CE marking and have been the subject of a quality check by the competent certification body, as technically unacceptable at the stage of the technical assessment, in reliance upon sound objections relating to their adequacy in terms of quality which are connected with the protection of public health and the specific form of use for which those devices are intended and in view of which objections the devices are considered inappropriate and unfit for that use (with the self-evident precondition that those objections are subject to review of their validity by the court having jurisdiction if there is a dispute as to whether they pertain)?

               (2)

               If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the contracting authority as the purchaser of the relevant goods able, for the foregoing reason, directly to consider medical devices which bear the CE marking unsuitable for the form of use for which they are intended, or must the safeguard clauses first be applied which are contained in Directive 93/42 and the abovementioned Joint Ministerial Decree DI7/ik.2480/1994 and which enable the relevant competent authority – which in Greece is the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Social Security acting through the Directorate for Biomedical Technology – to take measures either in accordance with the procedure in Article 8 of the directive, if correctly installed and maintained medical devices may jeopardise the life or safety of patients or users, or under Article 18 of the directive, if it is established that the CE marking has been affixed unduly?

               (3)

               In light of the answer to the second question, and in the event that the abovementioned safeguard clauses must first be applied, is the contracting authority obliged to await the outcome of the procedure initiated either under Article 8 or under Article 18 of Directive 93/42 and, further, is it bound by that outcome in the sense that it is obliged to procure the article in question even though its use demonstrably gives rise to risks for public health and generally it is unsuitable for the use for which the contracting authority intends it?


title: Case C-420/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 31 October 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Werner Salentinig, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg

text:
27.1.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 28/17
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be         4.    must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 13, 36                (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land                   1994) be disapplied by the Italian courts?
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with          5.    must bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the                   bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the                France) be allowed into free circulation without any
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by                restriction, such as the previous packaging requirement
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                     provided for in Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July
case?                                                                         1967 (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of
                                                                              22 February 1994)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Padova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the
  case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
                                                                        31 October 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Werner
                                                                        Salentinig, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salz-
                         (Case C-416/00)
                                                                        burg, and (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salz-
                                                                                burg
                          (2001/C 28/31)
                                                                                (Case C-420/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
                                                                                (2001/C 28/32)
Padova — Sezione II (Padua Civil District Court — Second
Chamber) of 16 October 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
on the following questions:                                             European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                                                                        tungssenat Salzburg of 31 October 2000, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 14 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
1.    must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967                   in the appeal concerning Dr (1) Werner Salentinig, (2)
      (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February           Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and (3) Grund-
      1994), as interpreted by the Mayor of the Commune of              verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg:
      Padua in the contested order, in so far as it prohibits the
      sale of bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
      bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from                 Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
      France), if it has not previously been packaged by the            interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
      reseller, be regarded as incompatible with Articles 30 and        and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
      36 of the EC Treaty?                                              Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
                                                                        No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
2.    must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967                   building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
      (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February           a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
      1994) and the subsequent construction placed upon it by           acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
      the Mayor of the Commune of Padua be regarded as a                fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
      quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent           the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
      effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?         case?
3.    if so, may the Italian State avail itself of the derogation
      provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty for the purpose
      of protecting the health and lives of humans?


title: Case C-98/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n o 7 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 4 March 2008 — Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Asociación de Artistas Intérpretes o Ejecutantes — Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE) v Sogecable S.A. and Canal Satélite Digital S.L.

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 7 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 4 March 2008 — Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Asociación de Artistas Intérpretes o Ejecutantes — Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE) v Sogecable S.A. and Canal Satélite Digital S.L.
   (Case C-98/08)
   (2008/C 128/39)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 7 de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Asociación de Artistas Intérpretes o Ejecutantes — Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE)

      Defendants: Sogecable S.A. and Canal Satélite Digital S.L.
   Question referred
   Does Community law and, in particular, Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property permit the Member States to adopt a provision like Article 109.1 of Law 22/1987 of 11 November on Intellectual Property, which recognises the exclusive right of producers of phonograms published for commercial purposes to authorise the public communication of those phonograms and copies thereof?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.


title: Case C-336/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac
   (Case C-336/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles)
   2011/C 211/13
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Defendant: Victor Vinel Ijac

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Craiova — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Whether national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU

      Operative part of the order

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-371/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2012 — Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo v Unipol

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2012 — Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo v Unipol
   (Case C-371/12)
   2012/C 295/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo

      Defendant: Unipol

      Question referred

   In the light of Directives 72/166/EEC, (1) 84/5/EEC, (2) 90/232/EEC (3) and 2009/103/EC (4) governing compulsory insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles, is it permissible for the domestic legislation of a Member State effectively to provide — by imposing, solely in the case of damage arising from road traffic accidents, a compulsory method for quantifying the damage — a limitation (in terms of quantification) of the liability for non-material damage lying with the persons (insurance companies) obliged under those directives to ensure compulsory insurance for damage caused by the use of vehicles?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

      (4)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).


title: Case C-331/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 18 June 2013 — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 18 June 2013 — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-331/13)
   2013/C 260/40
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ilie Nicolae Nicula

      Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 110 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, both affirmed in Community law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as Emergency Order No 9/2013?

      (1)  Case C-381/97 Belgocodex [1998] ECR I-8153, and Case 10/78 Belbouab [1978] ECR 1915.


title: Case T-542/08: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECHA

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/21

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECHA
   (Case T-542/08) (1)

   2011/C 219/33
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


               10.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/10

         Action brought on 3 August 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-10/16)
   (2016/C 413/09)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 August 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Article 13 of the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 13 March 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 13 January 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment, as referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-495/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France), lodged on 15 October 2010 — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon v Thomas Dutrueux, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France), lodged on 15 October 2010 — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon v Thomas Dutrueux, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura
   (Case C-495/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/21
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon

      Respondents: Thomas Dutrueux, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the provisions of Article 13 thereof, does Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 (1) permit the implementation of a liability system based on the special situation of patients in public health establishments, in so far as it recognises, inter alia, that they have the right to obtain from such establishments, even in the absence of fault on the part of those establishments, compensation for injury caused by the failure of products and equipment which they use, without prejudice to the possibility for the establishment to seek indemnity from the producer?

               2.

               Does Directive 85/374 limit the possibility for Member States to define the liability of persons who use defective equipment or products while providing services and, in so doing, cause damage to the recipient of those services?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).


title: Case C-175/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
   (Case C-175/15)
   (2015/C 236/33)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Taser International Inc.

      Defendant: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

      Questions referred

   Must Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation’ also covers the situation in which the parties to a contract for the assignment of rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union have decided, unequivocally and undisputedly, to confer jurisdiction to settle any dispute regarding fulfilment of contractual obligations on the courts of a State which is not a Member State of the European Union and in which the applicant is domiciled (has its seat), while the applicant has seised a court of a Member State of the European Union in whose territory the defendant is domiciled (has its seat)?
   If the answer is in the affirmative:
   Must Article 23(5) of that regulation be interpreted as not referring to a clause conferring jurisdiction on a State that is not a Member State of the European Union, so that the court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation will determine jurisdiction according to the rules of private international law in its own national legislation?
   Can a dispute relating to the enforcement, through the courts, of the obligation to assign rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union, assumed under a contract between the parties to that dispute, be regarded as referring to a right ‘required to be deposited or registered’ within the meaning of Article 22(4) of the regulation, having regard to the fact that, under the law of the State in which the trade mark is registered, the assignment of rights to a trade mark must be entered in the Trade Mark Register and published in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin?
   If the answer is in the negative, does Article 24 of the regulation preclude a court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation, in a situation such as that described in the above question, from declaring that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the case, even though the defendant has entered an appearance before that court, including in the final instance, without contesting jurisdiction?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-155/09: Action brought on 4 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/4

         Action brought on 4 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-155/09)
   2009/C 167/07
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, D. Triantafillou)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under Articles 18, 39 and 43 EC in the light of Article 12 EC (and under Articles 28, 31 and 4 of the EEA Treaty), inasmuch as it is impeding the exercise of fundamental freedoms deriving from those provisions:

                           —

                           by granting exemption from tax on the transfer of immovable property solely to persons already permanently resident in Greece but not to persons who intend to settle in Greece in the future;

                           —

                           by granting, subject to conditions, exemption from tax on the transfer of immovable property in Greece solely to Greek nationals on the purchase of a first home in Greece, expressly discriminating against foreign residents who are not Greek nationals;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Exemption from transfer tax benefits mainly Greek citizens. The fact that Community nationals who are not already resident in Greece are excluded from the exemption constitutes discriminatory treatment linked to nationality which thus renders more difficult and impedes the purchase of a first home in that country by citizens of other Member States. That discriminatory impediment is confirmed and reinforced by the express restriction of the exemption to Greek citizens abroad.
   The measure is not an appropriate way to make it easier for residents of the country to acquire ownership of their homes, in the absence of corresponding obligations as regards use of the immovable property. Moreover, it appears excessive, since actual residence could be checked by way of a declaration on the part of the purchaser, accompanied by various entries in the Register, and checks.
   As concerns the express restriction of the exemption to Greeks abroad, this cannot be justified by the objective of their repatriation, since that objective conflicts with the principle of free movement.


title: Case T-467/12: Action brought on 25 October 2012 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/38

         Action brought on 25 October 2012 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)
   (Case T-467/12)
   2013/C 9/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tridium, Inc. (Richmond, Unites States) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: q-bus Mediatektur GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in case R 1943/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEDONA FRAMEWORK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9067372

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 934023 of the figurative mark ‘~sedna’, for goods in class 9

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-110/15: Action brought on 2 March 2015 — International Management Group v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/65

         Action brought on 2 March 2015 — International Management Group v Commission
   (Case T-110/15)
   (2015/C 138/84)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller, Solicitor, and E. Wright, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S)(2015)4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant access to certain documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay for the 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 the defendant failed in its duty to give reasons when it refused to grant access to the requested documents, relying upon a general presumption of applicability of the protection of the purposes of inspections, investigations and audits.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to explain why the protection of privacy and integrity of individuals prevents partial access to the requested documents.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the applicant’s right to good administration.


title: Case T-61/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Vermop Salmon v OHIM — Leifheit (Clean Twist) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Clean Twist — Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXSTER — Relative ground of refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Vermop Salmon v OHIM — Leifheit (Clean Twist)
   (Case T-61/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Clean Twist - Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXSTER - Relative ground of refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, M. Ring and O. Sude, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 671/2010-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and Leifheit AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vermop Salmon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case C-416/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH
   (Case C-416/12)
   2012/C 379/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Wikom Elektrik GmbH

      Defendant: VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

      Question referred

   Does the concept of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) include the rebroadcasting, by wire, of a broadcast work in the case where the original broadcast can also be received by wireless means in the catchment area, the work is rebroadcast to the owners of reception equipment who receive the broadcast personally or within their own private or family circles, and the rebroadcasting is carried out for profit-making purposes by a broadcasting organisation other than the original one?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-62/05 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. in liquidation against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedizionieri and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/20

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. in liquidation against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedizionieri and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-62/05 P)
   (2005/C 82/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedizionieri and Others and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizionieri and Others, represented by G. Leone, lawyer.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1 –

               Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 June 2002 (file REM 1401), notified on 2 September 2002, by which it found the remission of import duties to be unjustified, and declare on the contrary that in the present case the remission is justified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1) on the basis of special circumstances in which no negligence or deception may be attributed to the appellants;

               2 –

               Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The appellants, who are customs agents, issued in October 1992 two T1 Community transit declarations that loads originating in Yugoslavia and destined for Spain contained cardboard boxes. The Italian customs authorities requested the appellants to pay the customs duties chargeable on the two loads in question declaring that the loads did not contain boxes but cigarettes.
   The appellants brought legal proceedings, which they lost, and then applied to the Commission for remission of the customs duties, which it refused, holding that the appellants did not satisfy the prescribed requirements.
   The appellants therefore brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities based on Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79, submitting that they could not be liable for the customs duties because in this case there are ‘special circumstances’ exempting Nordspedizionieri from the obligation to pay those duties. They claim that they were entitled to rely on the documents (commercial and transport) presented to them by the driver of the lorry at the time of the customs declaration, from which it appeared that the loads were of cardboard boxes.
   The special situation permitting remission arises from the fact that the customs agent is unable to inspect the contents of lorries which ‘legitimately’ cross the border between Italy and Yugoslavia and moreover that, in the present case, the documentation appeared to be in order so that the loads cleared customs under the ‘fast track’ customs procedure.
   The applicants further point to the fulfilment in the present case of the other requirement of Article 13 that there be no ‘negligence’ or ‘deception’, in that the T1 declaration was drawn up on the basis of the information given in the commercial and transport documentation.
   Lastly, in the application to the Court of First Instance, the appellants pleaded in the alternative the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation EEC No 2144/87 (2), which excludes the payment of customs duties on those goods which were seized and then confiscated.
   By judgment of 14 December 2004, the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety, holding that there were no ‘special circumstances’, and therefore leaving aside the question whether or not in the present case there was no ‘negligence or deception’.
   The appeal restates the same arguments advanced at first instance, including the fact that in the present case there appears to have been an infringement of the 1965 Belgrade Agreement on mutual administrative assistance between Italy and Yugoslavia, which obliges the Yugoslav customs authorities to notify the Italian customs authorities of the transit of fiscally sensitive goods (such as cigarettes) with reference to the two lorries in question; a third lorry was stopped and the goods seized thanks to the warning received (albeit late) by the Italian customs from their Yugoslav counterparts.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 175 of 12.07.1979, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1987 L 201 of 22.07.1987, p. 15.


title: Case C-643/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — LVK — 56 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right of deduction — Refusal — Article 203 — Entering of the VAT on the invoice — Chargeability — Existence of a taxable transaction — Identical determination in respect of the issuer of the invoice and its recipient — Necessity)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — LVK — 56 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-643/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Right of deduction - Refusal - Article 203 - Entering of the VAT on the invoice - Chargeability - Existence of a taxable transaction - Identical determination in respect of the issuer of the invoice and its recipient - Necessity)
   2013/C 86/09
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LVK — 56 EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Evidence of the existence of the chargeable event — Practice of the tax authorities refusing to grant the right to deduct VAT to the purchaser of taxable goods on the ground that there is no evidence that the supply took place, despite the finding that the tax had become chargeable at the level of the supplier

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the value added tax entered by a person on an invoice is payable by him regardless of whether a taxable transaction actually exists;

                           —

                           it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the tax authorities did not correct, in a tax adjustment notice addressed to the issuer of that invoice, the value added tax declared by the latter that those authorities have acknowledged that the invoice corresponded to an actual taxable transaction.

               2.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that Articles 167 and 168(a) of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty and equal treatment do not preclude the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct input value added tax because there is no actual taxable transaction even though, in the tax adjustment notice addressed to the issuer of that invoice, the value added tax declared by the latter was not adjusted. However, if, in the light of fraud or irregularities, committed by the issuer of the invoice or upstream of the transaction relied upon as the basis for the right of deduction, that transaction is considered not to have been actually carried out, it must be established, on the basis of objective factors and without requiring of the recipient of the invoice checks which are not his responsibility, that he knew or should have known that that transaction was connected with value added tax fraud, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00: Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartels — Markets in seamless steel tubes — Duration of the infringement — Fines)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-44/00: Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Markets in seamless steel tubes - Duration of the infringement - Fines)
   (2004/C 239/24)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-44/00: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, established in Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Erhart and A. Whelan, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (OJ 2003, L 140, p. 1), or, alternatively, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) in so far as it finds that the infringement imputed to the applicant by that provision existed before 1 January 1991;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 4 of Decision 2003/382 at EUR 12,600,000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Claude Bochu against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-123/98)

text:
C 312/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.10.98
Secondly, the applicant claims that there has been an              to be a member of the temporary staff, became for the
infrignement of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The                   first time an official as such, or it relied on Articles 31 and
prerequisites for a prohibition of the Bertelsmann/Kirch/          32 of the Staff Regulations and should state the reasons
Premiere/DF1/DSF concentration were not met, since the             for its refusal to attach any weight whatever to the
concentration would not alter the market position. The             professional experience gained by the applicant over a
concentration in BetaDigital was also wrongly prohibited,          period of nearly 13 years prior to his entry into service as
and the prohibition of the concentration in BetaResearch           an official.
could not be justified. That prohibition was not supported
by the necessary statement of reasons pursuant to                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of
Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                      his claims:
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the Commission should           Ð infringement of Articles 4, 7, 31 and 32 of the Staff
have allowed the concentration at least after the                       Regulations, in that, according to Community case-
participants had declared themselves willing to give                    law, Article 32 of the Staff Regulations governs the
undertakings which would allow and encourage                            position of staff members who become Community
competition by third parties in the areas of both                       officials for the first time following a recruitment
technology and programme rights.                                        procedure. By contrast, Article 46 of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations, on the basis of which the contested
                                                                        decision appears to have been adopted, is designed to
                                                                        govern the promotion of Community staff members
                                                                        who already possess the status of official,
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Claude Bochu                    Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    reasons, as laid down in Article 25 of the Staff
                       (Case T-123/98)                                  Regulations. The need to state such reasons is all the
                                                                        greater in the present case since the recruitment
                        (98/C 312/44)                                   procedure relating to the post in issue was initially
                                                                        open to grade A 4 officials and the defendant thus
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        implicitly accepted that the specific requirements of
                                                                        the post in question justified the recruitment of an
An action against the Commission of the European                        official of that grade.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998
                                                                   Lastly, the applicant asserts that there has been in the
by Claude Bochu, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   present case a manifest error of assessment, breach of the
Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
                                                                   duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                   officials and violation of the principles of good
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                   management and sound administration. He states in that
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   regard that at no time during the procedure did either the
                                                                   Classification Committee or DG IX contact DG XI in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        order to obtain information concerning the specific needs
                                                                   of the service, with the result that the appointing authority
Ð annul the Commission's decision to appoint the                   possessed no information whatever enabling it to examine
    applicant a probationer official, in so far as that            whether the specific needs of the service required the
    appointment classifies him in grade A 7, step 1,               recruitment of the applicant in a grade other than the
                                                                   lowest grade. Moreover, the appointing authority ignored
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including those            the fact that he possessed over seven years' post-university
    incurred by the applicant in defending his interests           experience and the level of responsibility of the duties
    during the pre-litigation stage.                               which had been entrusted to him in the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a former grade B 3 member of the
temporary staff who, having passed internal competition
COM/A/16/93, was appointed to category A, contests the             Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi
decision of the appointing authority to classify him in                      against the European Training Foundation
grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                                (Case T-124/98)
He observes, first, that the contested decision refers in its                               (98/C 312/45)
preamble to Articles 1, 2, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 34 of the
Staff Regulations. Thus it did not officially refer to the                          (Language of the case: French)
third paragraph of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations,
which is nevertheless the only provision applicable to             An action against the European Training Foundation was
officials who, having passed a competition, move up to a           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
higher category. In his view, therefore, either the                Communities on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi,
Commission relied on that provision and should state the           residing in Turin (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
reasons for applying it to the applicant, who, upon ceasing        Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels


title: Case T-534/14: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Bach Flower Remedies (MURNAUERS Bachblüten) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/27

         Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Bach Flower Remedies (MURNAUERS Bachblüten)
   (Case T-534/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 068/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and D. Horst, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renck and M. Petersen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 2041/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Bach Flower Remedies Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Bach Flower Remedies Ltd shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.