title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-158/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (Common organisation of markets in the sugar sector - System of compensation for storage costs - Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Inadmissibility)

text:
16.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 299/21
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 8 July 1999                                                               of 8 July 1999
in Case T-158/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and                  in Case T-168/95 Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)                                  Others v Council of the European Union (1)
(Common organisation of markets in the sugar sector —                      (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
System of compensation for storage costs — Action for                      — Fixing of derived intervention prices for deficit areas
annulment — Natural and legal persons — Inadmissibility)                   — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons
                                                                                — Inadmissible)
                          (1999/C 299/26)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/27)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-158/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, estab-
lished in Genoa (Italy), ISI — Industria Saccarifera Italiana              In Case T-168/95: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, whose
Agroindustriale SpA, established in Padua (Italy), Sadam                   registered office is in Genoa (Italy), Industria Saccarifera Italiana
Zuccherifici, a division of SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali            Agroindustriale SpA, whose registered office is in Padua (Italy),
Industriali SpA, established in Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castig-             Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of Società Esercizi Commerciali
lionese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA,                    Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese SpA and Sadam Abruzzo
established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, estab-               SpA, all registered in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
lished at Termoli (Italy), SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale            whose registered office is at Termoli (Italy) Società Fondiaria
Romagnolo SpA, established at Cesena (Italy), and Ponteco                  Industriale Romagnola SpA, whose registered office is at
Zuccheri SpA, established at Pontelagoscuro (Italy), represent-            Cesena (Italy) and Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, whose registered
ed by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor, and Ivano Vigliotti and                 office is at Pontelagoscuro (Italy), represented by Bernard
Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service              O’Connor, Solicitor, and Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta, of
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12                     the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Boulevard de la Foire, v Council of the European Union                     the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire
(Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Ignacio Dı́ez Parra), supported by              v Council of the European Union (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Eugenio                     Ignacio Dı́ez Parra), supported by the Commission of the
De March) — application, in substance, for annulment, first,               European Communities (Agent: Eugenio De March) — appli-
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995                     cation for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1534/95
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common                         of 29 June 1995 fixing, for the 1995/96 marketing year, the
organization of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation              derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
(EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the pro-                    price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and
duction refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical              the amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1995
industry (OJ 1995 L 110, p. 1) and, second, of Council                     L 148, p. 11) in so far as it predicts, for the purposes of fixing
Regulation (EC) No 1534/95 of 29 June 1995 fixing, for the                 the derived intervention prices for white sugar, a deficit supply
1995/96 marketing year, the derived intervention prices for                situation in Italy’s production areas — the Court of First
white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum             Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for                J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
storage costs (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 11) — the Court of                        judgment on 8 July 1999, the operative part of which is as
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                follows:
President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:               1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                              2. The applicants are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, in
                                                                                addition to their own costs, the entirety of the costs incurred by
2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own costs          the Council in the present proceedings, including those incurred
     and to pay the costs of the Council;                                       in the action for interim relief.
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                            3. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.                                                (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.


title: Case C-391/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of  30 August 2005  in Jan de Nul N.V. v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 30 August 2005 in Jan de Nul N.V. v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg
   (Case C-391/05)
   (2006/C 10/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg of 30 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jan de Nul N.V. and Hauptzollamt Oldenburg on the following questions:

               1.

               What interpretation should be given to the term ‘Community waters’ in the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 in contrast to the term ‘inland waterways’ for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 8(2)(b) of Directive 92/81 (1)?

               2.

               Should the operation of a suction and holding vessel (so-called ‘hopper dredger’) in Community waters always be regarded as navigation within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 or is it necessary to draw a distinction between the various forms of activity during the course of its use?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12.


title: Case C-113/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München
   (Case C-113/15)
   (2015/C 198/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are individual portions of honey which are packaged in bulk in a carton containing all the labelling elements, including the indication of the country of origin, and which are not sold as individual portions to final consumers nor supplied individually to mass caterers, ‘prepackaged foodstuff’ or ‘prepacked food’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) and Article 2(2)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (2) respectively, for which there is a corresponding labelling requirement, or are such portions of honey not subject to the labelling requirements for prepackaged foodstuff/prepacked foods due to their not being offered for sale as a single item?

               2.

               Is the answer different if those individual portions are supplied in mass catering establishments not only in meals that are paid for as a whole but are also sold individually?

      (1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.


title: Case T-567/13: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014  — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD) (Community trademark — Application for Community figurative mark BIG PAD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/32

         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)
   (Case T-567/13) (1)

   ((Community trademark - Application for Community figurative mark BIG PAD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   2014/C 212/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sharp KK (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and E. Armero, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2013 (Case R 2131/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIG PAD as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Sharp KK is ordered to pay to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-420/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SAZAS v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SAZAS v Commission
   (Case T-420/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS) (Trzin, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-243/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2012 by FLS Plast A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2012 in Case T-64/06: FLS Plast A/S v European Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/2

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2012 by FLS Plast A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2012 in Case T-64/06: FLS Plast A/S v European Commission
   (Case C-243/12 P)
   2012/C 319/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: FLS Plast A/S (represented by: M. Thill-Tayara, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               (a)

               Primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 March 2012 in Cases T-64/06 and, adjudicating the case, to annul Articles 1(h) and 2(f) of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities dated 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial Bags (‘the Contested Decision’), insofar as they apply to the Appellant.

               (b)

               Alternatively, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 March 2012 in Case T-64/06 in so far as it rejected the Appellant's grounds seeking a reduction of the amount for which the Appellant was held jointly and severally liable in the Contested Decision and, adjudicating the case, to amend Article 2(f) of the Contested Decision and substantially reduce this amount in exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction.

               (c)

               In any event, grant the Appellant a 50 % reduction of the amount for which the Appellant was held jointly and severally liable in reparation of the excessive duration of the procedure.

               (d)

               Order the European Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               (a)

                     In support of the primary form of order sought, the Appellant raises two pleas in law

                           (i)

                           The General Court applied the wrong legal test to the Appellant's liability.

                           (ii)

                           The General Court failed to verify whether the Commission complied with its duty to state reasons when rejecting the arguments and evidence submitted by the Appellant in order to rebut the presumption of parent liability.

               (b)

                     In support of the alternative form of order sought, the Appellant raises three pleas in law

                           (i)

                           When reviewing the Appellant's non-contestation of the facts submitted in accordance with the Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases of 1996, the General Court erred by failing to put an end to the breaches by the European Commission of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as by not complying with its own obligation to state reasons.

                           (ii)

                           The General Court erred in law by failing to apply the principle of proportionality and legality when reviewing the amount for which the Appellant was held jointly and severally liable in the Contested Decision, thus failing to reduce this amount accordingly.

                           (iii)

                           The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 41 and 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in not handing down a judgment within a reasonable time.


title: Case C-259/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2016 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2016 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-259/16)
   (2016/C 343/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra), Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporti Automobilistici, Società Fercam SpA, Associazione non Riconosciuta Alsea, Associazione Fedit, Società Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali Srl, Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Spedizioni Internazionali — Associazione Fedespedi, Società Tnt Global Express SpA

      Respondents: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law, in particular Article [2].1, 2.1a and 2.6 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, (2) preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 2(a) and (f) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999, and Article 1(1)(g) and (r), in conjunction with each other and subparagraph (i), of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they are intended to bring the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers also within the scope of postal services?

               2.

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 9(1) and [2].19 of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999 and Article 8 of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the requirement to obtain a general authorisation in addition to the authorisation required to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements regarding the supply of postal services?

               3.

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6(1bis) and 10(2) of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the burden of contributing to the compensation fund for the universal service?

               4.

               Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets?

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

      (2)  Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).


title: Case T-142/15: Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — DHL Express (France) v EUIPO — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPING)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/35

         Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — DHL Express (France) v EUIPO — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPING)
   (Case T-142/15) (1)

   (2016/C 222/44)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case C-525/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — European Commission v Germany

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/35

         Action brought on 19 November 2012 — European Commission v Germany
   (Case C-525/12)
   2013/C 26/67
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive) (1) and in particular under Article 2(38) and Article 9, because it has adopted an interpretation which excludes certain services from the concept of ‘water services’.

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of surface water or ground water for the purposes of hydro electric power production, navigation and flood protection are also included within water services. Further, personal consumption is also be categorised under water services.
   The use of the concept ‘water services’ by the defendant is contrary to Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The defendant excludes water services such as impoundment which is intended for hydro electric power production, navigation and flood protection from the scope of water services within the meaning of the Directive. Such a narrow interpretation is not compatible with the WFD, undermines the effectiveness of Article 9 WFD and thereby jeopardises the attainment of the Directive’s objectives.
   It is true that the Member States enjoy a certain margin of discretion on the basis of Article 9 WFD to exclude water services from recovery of costs. They might first have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery of costs as well as the geographic and climatic conditions. Further, a Member state might under Article 9(4) WFD decide not to apply the provisions of the second sentence of Article 9(1) WFD in relation to water-pricing policies and recovery of the costs of water services. That option is subject to the condition that there is an established practice in the Member State and that the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the Directive are not compromised.
   However, the complete exclusion of a substantial range of water services, as effected by the defendant, goes far beyond that margin of discretion.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 321, p. 1


title: Case T-150/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark ECOLAB — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)
   (Case T-150/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ECOLAB - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and C. Menebröcker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and K. Doherty, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 644/2015-4) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ECOLAB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-500/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Italy) — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl (Taxation — VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Sixth Directive — Articles 2 and 22 — Automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Italy) — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl
   (Case C-500/10) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Sixth Directive - Articles 2 and 22 - Automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance)
   2012/C 151/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ufficio IVA di Piacenza

      Defendant: Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Value added tax — Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Obligation of Member States to ensure the effective recovery of VAT — National legislation providing for the closure, in certain circumstances, of judicial proceedings in tax matters without any ruling on the substance by the court hearing the case at third instance, the decision of the court of second instance thus becoming res iudicata — Claim that the effect is the abandonment of the recovery of harmonised taxes

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as not precluding the application in value added tax matters of an exceptional provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance where those proceedings originate in an application brought at first instance more than 10 years, and in practice more than 14 years, before the date of the entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance, the consequence of that automatic conclusion being that the decision of the court of second instance becomes final and binding and the debt claimed by the tax authorities is extinguished.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-587/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Interspeed v Commission (Non-contractual liability — External relations — Call for tenders issued by the EAR concerning work at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing, the financing of the works and other connected measures — No causal link)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Interspeed v Commission
   (Case T-587/10) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - External relations - Call for tenders issued by the EAR concerning work at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing, the financing of the works and other connected measures - No causal link)
   2012/C 250/24
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: M. Bošnjak, lawyer)

      Defendant: EuropeanCommission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and B. Rous, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the compensation of damage allegedly resulting from works carried out at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing under a contract financed by the EAR.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Order Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case C-337/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition — Breaches of the duty to act diligently — Concept of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of a rule of EU law — Non-material damage — Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen
   (Case C-337/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition - Breaches of the duty to act diligently - Concept of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of a rule of EU law - Non-material damage - Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman))
   (2017/C 168/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Ombudsman (represented initially by: G. Grill, and subsequently by L. Papadias and P. Dyrberg, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares the application made by Ms Claire Staelen in her response for the European Ombudsman to be ordered to pay her compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 inadmissible;

               2.

               Sets aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238);

               3.

               Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Ms Claire Staelen compensation in the amount of EUR 7 000;

               4.

               Orders Ms Claire Staelen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in relation to the cross-appeal, dismissed by order of 29 June 2016, Ombudsman v Staelen (C-337/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:670);

               5.

               Orders the European Ombudsman to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Claire Staelen in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the main appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-269/10: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — LIS v Commission (Dumping — Importation of compact fluorescent lamps with integrated electronic ballast originating in China — Request for reimbursement of duties collected — Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Conditions — Evidence)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — LIS v Commission
   (Case T-269/10) (1)

   (Dumping - Importation of compact fluorescent lamps with integrated electronic ballast originating in China - Request for reimbursement of duties collected - Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Conditions - Evidence)
   2012/C 343/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: LIS GmbH Licht Impex Service (Mettmann, Germany) (represented by: K.-P. Langenkamp, G. Hebrant and G. Holler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Maxian Rusche, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 2198 final of 12 April 2010 concerning requests for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid in respect of the importation of compact fluorescent lamps with integrated electronic ballast originating in the People’s Republic of China.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LIS GmbH Licht Impex Service to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-357/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Focus Magazin Verlag v OHIM — Editorial Planeta (FOCUS Radio) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FOCUS Radio — Earlier national word marks FOCUS MILENIUM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Focus Magazin Verlag v OHIM — Editorial Planeta (FOCUS Radio)
   (Case T-357/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FOCUS Radio - Earlier national word marks FOCUS MILENIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Müller, R. Schweizer and T. Schwarz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Editorial Planeta, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2007 (Case R 269/2005-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Editorial Planeta, SA, and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach by order of that court of 28 November 1995 in the case of Horst Ziemann v. Firma Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Firma Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst (Case C-247/96)

text:
5 . 10. 96            I EN |              Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 294/3
     inspectors better training and appropriate national rules           The financial adjustment equal to 10 % of the expenses
     have been issued regarding inspections ( Circular No 4 in           paid to specialized traders and other independent
     GURI ( Official Gazette ) No 74 of 30 March 1993 ). The             warehouses between the start of the year and
     initiatives taken by the Italian Government should result           31 December 1992 is unlawful . The periods taken into
     in fixed-rate deductions at the lowest level permitted ,            account by the European Commission coincide with
     rather than the maximum ( 10% ).                                    transitional periods attributable initially to the transfer
                                                                         of the duties of the Sugar Stabilization Board to the
                                                                         AIMA and then to the cessation of the inspection
— Public storage of cereals, fixed-rate reduction following              activities of the UTIF — offices dealing with
     inquiries : Lit 10 082 336 246                                      manufacturing tax — concerning the production and
                                                                         movement of sugar at the so-called in-plant warehouses
                                                                         of the sugar companies .
    The Italian intervention agency does not have its own
     facilities for storage of the products delivered for that
    purpose and therefore has to rely on the cooperation of              As regards specialized traders, as beneficiaries of
    outside operators in order to implement intervention                 Community payments, a particularly far-reaching and
    measures . That task is entrusted to contractors, subject            strict system has been introduced , involving, inter alia,
    to the limitations of the individual warehouses on the list          heavy penalties merely for delay in sending
    or those authorized by the AIMA, under specific                      accompanying documents to the fraud prevention
    contracts laying down the conditions for provision of                offices . Moreover, in view of the close connection
    the service during the marketing year. In the recent past,           between the expenses paid out and charged to the
    contractors have not always carried out the tasks                    EAGGF budget and the contributions paid by the sugar
    assigned to them properly, to such an extent that serious            traders into the same EAGGF budget, the rejection of the
    management irregularities have been discovered .                     accounts in respect of warehousing is incompatible with
    Therefore , the AIMA is reviewing the rules applicable to            acceptance of the accounts in respect of the
    contractors in order to bring them more into line with               contributions paid by the beneficiaries .
    the Community regulations and the requirements
    indicated from time to time by Commission officials . In
    view of the fact that the Italian intervention agency has
    substantially amended the operating rules for public
    storage of cereals, to take account of the observations
    and comments made by the Commission officials, it is
    considered that the fixed-rate financial adjustment at the       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
    maximum levels of 10 and 5 % is excessive .                      Lorrach by order of that court of 28 November 1995 in the
                                                                     case of Horst Ziemann v. Firma Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH
                                                                               and Firma Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst
— Removal of land from production on multiannual basis :
    Lit 2 169 762 753                                                                        Case C-247/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/04 )
    In the Commission 's opinion, the practice of following
    —r an agricultural practice known as ' aridocoltura ',           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    based on alternating with the normal production of               European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht
    crops, over cycles of three or four years , periods which        Lorrach ( Labour Court, Lorrach ) of 28 November 1995 ,
    are often shorter than a cultivation year, in which the         which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1996 ,
    land is ploughed, sometimes more than once, in order to          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Horst Ziemann v.
    improve its capacity to take in and retain water, thereby        Firma Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Firma Horst Bohn
    increasing the reserves available — cannot render the            Sicherheitsdienst on the following questions :
    land eligible for set-aside aid since that very practice
    involved 'technical idle-time'; essentially, it would make
                                                                     1 . Do Article 1(1 ) and Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive
    no sense to pay for non-use of land which in the
                                                                         77/l87/EEC ( 1 ) also apply to the transfer of part of a
    reference year was merely ploughed ( sometimes more
                                                                         business, such as the task of guarding a military
    than once ) but had not been used for any crop . On the
                                                                         installation , where there is no direct legal transfer
    basis of those considerations, a financial adjustment was
                                                                         between        successor     contractors      ( surveillance
    made at the rate of 10 % of the expenditure allowed for
                                                                         undertakings )?
    Sicily in respect of 1992 . However, the practice of
    traditional fallowing has been superseded in recent years
    and in any event since the 1987/1988 year ( the reference       2 . Is that at any rate the case if, on termination of the
    year ) by a different type of fallowing known as ' dressed           contract, the part of the business reverts to the body
    fallowing', involving recourse to cultivated autumn and              awarding the contract, which then immediately enters
    spring crops, for early harvesting, such as leguminous               into a contract for services with a succesor that contains
    forage crops, broad beans , chickpeas, potatoes, etc .               essentially the same standard conditions ?
— Reimbursement of sugar storage expenditure : Lit                   3 . Is there at any rate a transfer of a business within the
    391 281 020                                                          meaning of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/187/EEC if
 ---pagebreak--- No C 294/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 10 . 96
    essentially the same employees continue to perform the              Are Presidential Decree No 915 of 10 September 1982 ( )
    same surveillance duties on essentially the same terms ,            and current Italian legislation in general relating to waste
    which are determined to a large extent by the body                  and secondary raw materials compatible with Directive
    awarding the contract ?                                             91 / 156/EEC of 18 March 1991 ( 2 )?
(') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                 (') Erroneously given as 1992 in the order for reference .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p. 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile
e Penale, Brescia, by order of that court of 12 April 1996, in          References for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by orders of that court of 9 July
the criminal proceedings pending before it against Riccardo
                                Piccaluga                               1996 in the cases of Helmut Kampelmann v.
                                                                        Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-253/96 ), Wilfried
                         ( Case C-250/96                                Tilsch v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-254/96 ),
                            ( 96/C 294/05 )                             Dieter Klingelhöfer v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe
                                                                        ( C-255/96 ), Heinrich Schmidt v. Landschaftsverband
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Westfalen-Lippe ( C-256/96 ), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v.
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile                Andreas Schade ( C-257/96 ) and Klaus Haseley v.
e Penale ( Civil and Criminal District Court), Brescia , of                            Stadtwerke Altena GmbH ( C-258/96 )
12 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                               ( Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 )
22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/07
proceedings pending before it against Riccardo Piccaluga on
the following questions :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Fourth Chamber of
1 . May the provisions of Italian law concerning                        the Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court ) Hamm of
    employment procurement and temporary work be                        9 July 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
    regarded as covered by the exercise of official authority           23 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Helmut
    within the meaning of Article 66 in conjunction with                Kampelmann , Wilfried Tilsch , Dieter Klingelhöfer and
    Article 55 of the Treaty, in the light of their public-law
                                                                        Heinrich Schmidt v. Landesverband Westfalen-Lippe,
    character, inasmuch as they are intended to protect                 Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade and Klaus
    workers and the national economy ?
                                                                        Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling on the following questions :
2 . In the absence of specific implementing provisions , may
    the aforesaid provisions be regarded as directly                     1 . In view of the objective , stated in the preamble to
     applicable ( thereby undermining the public-law                           Council Directive 91 /533/EEC on an employer's
     objectives pursued by the Italian laws in force relating to              obligation to inform employees of the conditions
     employment procurement and temporary work ) and do                        applicable to the contract or employment
     they permit any person , whether public or private, to act               relationship ( J ), of 'providing employees with improved
     as an intermediary between persons seeking and persons                   protection against possible infringements of their rights
     offering employment and/or temporary work, without                        and to create greater transparency on the labour
     any specific control or authorization , where the                         market', is it the purpose of Article 2 of the said
     Member State is unable to satisfy fully the demand for                    Directive to modify ( in the employee 's favour ) the
     services on the labour market using its own                               burden of proof in that the list of minimum
     administrative machinery ?                                                requirements in Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC is
                                                                               intended to ensure that the employee does not encounter
                                                                               difficulties of proof regarding the listed points when
                                                                               enforcing his contractual rights in employment-law
                                                                               disputes ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale, Rovigo ( Sezione Distaccata de Adria ), by                2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : has
 order of that court of 13 July 1993 in criminal proceedings                   Article 2 ( 2 ) (c ) ( ii ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC been
                   against Giuseppe Cordelia                                   directly applicable since 1 July 1993 against the State
                          ( Case C-251 /96 )                                   acting as an employer in private law because :
                             ( 96/C 294/06 )                                   — the Federal Republic of Germany did not
                                                                                ( completely ) implement Directive 91 /533/EEC by
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            30 June 1993 , the expiry date of the period for
 European Communities by order of the Pretura                                      implementation ,
 Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Rovigo ( Adria
 Division ), of 13 July 1 993 , which was received at the Court                — the abovementioned provision of the Directive is
 Registry on 22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                            unconditional and can therefore be incorporated in
 criminal proceedings pending before it against Giuseppe                           national law without any further implementing
 Cordelia on the following question :                                               act ,


title: Case C-217/09: Order of the Court of 17 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte, Italy) — Maurizio Polisseni v Azienda Sanitaria Locale N.14 V.C.O., Antonio Giuliano (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — Proximity — Supply of the population with medicines — Authorisation to operate — Territorial distribution of pharmacies — Establishment of limits based on a criterion of demographic density — Minimum distance between pharmacies)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/2

         Order of the Court of 17 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte, Italy) — Maurizio Polisseni v Azienda Sanitaria Locale N.14 V.C.O., Antonio Giuliano
   (Case C-217/09) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Supply of the population with medicines - Authorisation to operate - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits based on a criterion of demographic density - Minimum distance between pharmacies)
   2011/C 120/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maurizio Polisseni.

      Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale N.14 V.C.O., Antonio Giuliano

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Interpretation of Arts 43, 152 and 153 EC — Opening of new pharmacies — National legislation making authorisation for the moving of a pharmacy subject to the keeping of a minimum distance between one pharmacy and another

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted in principle as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which places limits on the sitting of pharmacies by providing that:

                           —

                           in each pharmaceutical area, only one pharmacy may be created, in principle, per 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants; and

                           —

                           each pharmacy must keep a minimum distance from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 200 metres.

               2.

               However, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic rules of 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants and 200 metres prevent the creation, in any geographical area with particular demographic characteristics, of a sufficient number of pharmacies capable of providing an appropriate pharmaceutical service, which it is for the national court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-141/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/18

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-141/14)
   2014/C 159/24
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, P. Mihaylova, C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to integrate, in their entirety, into the special protection area ‘Kaliakra’ the areas that are important for the conservation of birds, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to designate as a special protection area the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of biological species under Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC (1) and for the protection of regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I in the geographical sea and land area where Directive 2009/147/EC applies. Accordingly, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC;

               —

               declare that, by granting authorisation for Project ‘AES Geo Enerdzhi’ OOD, Project ‘Uindteh’ OOD, Project ‘Brestiom’ OOD, Project ‘Disib’ OOD, Project ‘Eko Enerdzhi’ OOD and Project ‘Longman Investmant’ OOD in the ‘Kaliakra’ area, which is important for the conservation of birds and which has not been designated as a special protection area, although it should have been so designated, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-96/98 and C-374/98;

               —

               declare that, by granting authorisation for projects in the special protection area ‘Kaliakra’, in the site of Community importance ‘Kompleks Kaliakra’ and in the special area of conservation ‘Belite Skali’ (‘Kaliakra uind pauar’ AD, ‘EVN Enertrag Kavarna’ OOD, ‘TSID — Atlas’ EOOD, ‘Vertikal — Petkov i s-ie’ OOD, golf and spa resort ‘Treyshan Klifs Golf end Spa Rezort’ OOD), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, (2) as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-117/03 and C-244/05, having failed to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of biological species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated;

               —

               declare that, owing to the failure to assess in an appropriate manner the cumulative effects of the projects authorised in the ‘Kaliakra’ area, which is important for the conservation of birds and which has not been designated as a special protection area (‘AES Geo Enerdzhi’ OOD, ‘Uindteh’ OOD, ‘Brestiom’ OOD, ‘Disib’ OOD, ‘Eko Enerdzhi’ OOD und ‘Longman Investmant’ OOD), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1), in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3), of Directive 2011/92/EU (3) and Annex III(1)(b) thereto;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Bulgaria has not designated as a special protection area so much of the ‘Kaliakra’ area as is important for the conservation of birds, which constitutes an infringement of the Birds Directive.
   By granting authorisation for a series of projects for economic activity in the special protection area ‘Kaliakra’, in the special area of conservation ‘Belite Skali’ and in the site of Community importance ‘Kompleks Kaliakra’, the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed the Birds Directive, the Habitat Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, in that it has allowed the destruction or significant deterioration of special, unique habitats of species and the destruction of species, and has failed to take account of the cumulative effects of a large number of projects.

      (1)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

      (3)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).


title: Case T-79/99: Action brought on 8 April 1999 by Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH against the Office for Harminisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)

text:
C 204/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 8 April 1999 by Euro-Lex European                     Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Adolfo Kind against
Law Expertise GmbH against the Office for Harminisation                        the Commission of the European Communities
      in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)
                                                                                (Case T-101/99)
                         (Case T-79/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/95)
                        (1999/C 204/94)                                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                  (Language of the Case: German)                        European Communities on 27 April 1999 by Adolfo Kind,
                                                                        represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
An action against the Office for Harminisation in the Internal          Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
1999 by Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH, Emmerich
(FRG), represented by Eckhard Benkelberg, Rechtsanwalt, of
Benkelberg & Kollegen. Steinstraße 10, Emmerich.                        — annul the decision of the Luxembourg Claims Office of the
                                                                             Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of 13 October 1998;
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested decision, in so far as it dismisses the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    appeal (point 3 of the operative part of the decision), and
    thereby also annul the decision rejecting the application of        The applicant, a former Commission official, challenges the
    20 May 1998 in so far as it rejects the application for             Luxembourg Claims Office’s refusal to authorise auxiliary
    registration of the trade mark under class 42 services;             medical treatment in hospital of one of his sons, made
                                                                        necessary by his mental condition.
— in the alternative, order oral proceedings to be held.
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of
                                                                        Annex I to the common rules on sickness insurance, which
                                                                        guarantee insurance cover of the services at issue. He maintains
                                                                        in that respect that:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        — Title X of Annex I to the common rules provides that fees
    Trade Mark         con- ‘EU-LEX’ — Registration Num-                     for treatment by legally authorised medical auxiliaries is
                                                                             to be reimbursed, provided such auxiliary treatment is
    cerned:                  ber 2436
                                                                             described by the practitioner;
    Goods or services:       ‘Class 42 — Legal and tax advice
                             by the offices of the members,             — the illness in question is covered by the common rules on
                             where permitted under the law                   sickness insurance. In this case, the Commission recognised
                             applicable to the head office of the            the existence of a serious illness, giving rise to reimburse-
                             office in question’                             ment of 100 % of expenses incurred, by decision of
                                                                             19 June 1998; and
    Decision       disputed Refusal of registration by the
    before the Board of examiner                                        — the auxiliary services provided were of a medical nature,
    Appeal:                                                                  and should thus give rise to reimbursement.
    Pleas in law:            — Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94              The applicant also pleads infringement of the duty to state
                                                                        reasons.
                             — Misapplication of Article
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                  No 40/94                              Purely in the alternative, he argues that the services in question
                                                                        fell within the scope of those which could be provided by a
                                                                        nurse.


title: Case C-354/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-354/07)
   (2007/C 247/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IFB Stroder Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case T-470/16: Action brought on 22 August 2016 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/20

         Action brought on 22 August 2016 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)
   (Case T-470/16)
   (2016/C 383/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a triangle) — Application No 14 167 654

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 in case R 2565/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2002 in Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v European Central Bank (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — No urgency)

text:
26.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/35
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May                    1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin                2.    The costs are reserved.
Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export
of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening
the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other
financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ
2002 L 139, p. 9), — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                     Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Success-Market-
3 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                   ing Unternehmensberatungesellschaft m.b.H. against the
                                                                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs)
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed
       against the Commission.
                                                                                (Case T-380/02)
2.     The applicant is ordered to pay the costs relating to this part of                               (2003/C 101/66)
       the action.
                                                                              (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application drafted in
( 1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
                                                                                German)
                                                                              An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                              18 December 2002 by Success-Marketing Unternehmensbera-
                                                                              tungesellschaft m.b.H., Linz (Austria), represented by G. Seck-
                                                                              lehner, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  bourg. Additional party before the Board of Appeal: Chipita
                             INSTANCE                                         International S.A., Athens.
                       of 19 December 2002                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
in Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                      European Central Bank                                         2 October 2002 ( 1);
                                                                              —     order the Office to allow restitution in integrum;
   (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — No urgency)
                                                                              —     order the Office to pay all the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                                including those for the procedure before the Board of
                          (2003/C 101/65)                                           Appeal.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              The applicant applied to the Office for registration of the word
In Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt, residing in                        mark ‘PAN & CO’ for goods and services of classes 11, 30, 35,
Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany), Tillmann Frommhold, residing                     37 and 42 (Application No 634287). Chipita International
in Karben (Germany), and Emmanuel Larue, residing in                          S.A., owner of the pictorial mark ‘PAN SPEZIALITÄTEN’ for
Frankfurt-am-Main, represented by B. Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt,                  goods of class 30 (Community Mark No 382374) lodged an
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European                   opposition to such registration.
Central Bank (Agents: T. Gilliams, G. Gruber and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for the temporary removal of a document
from the personal files of the applicants — the President of the              The Opposition Division set a time-limit for the applicant to
Court of First Instance made an order on 19 December 2002,                    submit its position on the opposition. The applicant did not
the operative part of which is as follows:                                    submit a position within that time-limit. By decision of


title: Case C-58/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Angelo Alberto Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Angelo Alberto Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata
   (Case C-58/13)
   2013/C 147/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio Nazionale Forense

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angelo Alberto Torresi

      Defendant: Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the general principle which prohibits any abuse of rights and Article 4(2) TEU, relating to respect for national identities, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (1) to be interpreted as obliging national administrative authorities to register in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad Italian nationals who have conducted themselves in a manner which abuses Union law, and as precluding a national practice which allows such authorities to reject applications for registration in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad where there are objective circumstances to indicate that there has been an abuse of Union law, without prejudice either to respect of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination or to the right of the person concerned to institute legal proceedings in order to argue a possible infringement of the right of establishment and, consequently, the possibility of judicial review of the administrative action in question?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the negative, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC, thus interpreted, to be regarded as invalid in light of Article 4(2) TEU, in that it enables circumvention of the rules of a Member State which make access to the legal profession conditional on passing a State examination, given that the Constitution of that Member States makes provision for such an examination and that the examination forms part of the fundamental principles safeguarding consumers of legal services and the proper administration of justice?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.


title: Case T-702/16 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 José Barroso Truta, Marc Forli, Calogero Galante, Bernard Gradel against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/30

      Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 José Barroso Truta, Marc Forli, Calogero Galante, Bernard Gradel against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice
      (Case T-702/16 P)
      (2016/C 441/35)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellants: José Barroso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg), Marc Forli (Lexy, France), Calogero Galante (Aix-Sur-Cloie, Belgium), Bernard Gradel (Konacker, France) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

         Form of order sought by the appellants

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v CJEU;

            and, giving judgment itself,

                  —

                  Order the Court of Justice to pay EUR 61 121,08 on behalf of Mr Barroso Truta, EUR 129 440,98 on behalf of Mr Forli, EUR 76 324,29 on behalf of Mr Galante and EUR 99 565,13 on behalf of Mr Gradel, to any fund or insurance policy in the appellants’ names;

                  —

                  In the alternative, order the Court of Justice to pay the abovementioned amounts to the appellants, those sums to be paid together with interest calculated at a rate of 3,1 % per annum from the date of the transfer of the appellants’ pension rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions;

                  —

                  Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by holding that the action for damages was inadmissible on the ground that the appellants did not observe the pre-litigation procedure, which allegedly should have commenced with the submission of a complaint, followed by a possible action for annulment of the decisions recognising the crediting of pensionable years in the pension scheme of the EU institutions.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the AECC had committed no administrative error when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years, which nevertheless proved to be incomplete or incorrect with regard to contract agents in function group I.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the harm claimed by the appellants was hypothetical.


title: Case C-640/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 December 2011 — E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 December 2011 — E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State
   (Case C-640/11)
   2012/C 39/23
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State

      Question referred

   May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


3.4.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 85/29
        Removal from the register of Case T-9/02 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-51/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 85/57)                                                          (2004/C 85/58)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Danish)
By order of 6 January 2004 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extented Composition) of the Court of First Instance            By order of 17 December 2003 the President of the Second
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the register of Case T-9/02: Adidas International B.V. v                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities.                                  T-51/03: Pi-Design AG v Office for the Harmonisation of the
                                                                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-244/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Konsum Nord v Commission (State aid — Land sale price — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor test — Determination of market price)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Konsum Nord v Commission
   (Case T-244/08) (1)

   (State aid - Land sale price - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor test - Determination of market price)
   2012/C 32/33
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: U. Öberg and I. Otken Eriksson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, P. Dejmek and J. Enegren, then by C. Giolito and L. Parpala, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening (OJ 2008 L 126, p. 3).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.