title: Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-329/98)

text:
24.10.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/13
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Ð declare that, by failing to communicate and to adopt
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             necessary in order to comply with Commission
                                                                      Directive 95/32/EC of 7 July 1995 relating to methods
                                                                      of analysis necessary for checking the composition of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           cosmetic products (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                                                                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
    period, the laws, regulations or administrative
    provisions necessary to comply with European                  Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC (1) of
    20 December 1994 amending for the 14th time
    Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
    the Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and         Article 2 of Commission Directive 95/32/EC requires the
    preparations or by failing to inform the Commission           Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations
    thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under the EC Treaty; and                          that directive by no later than 30 September 1996.
Ð Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                  That deadline has expired but the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                  has not yet taken the requisite internal steps to transpose
                                                                  the directive in issue.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  (1) OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 20.
Under Article 2(1) of European Parliament and Council
Directive 94/60/EC, Member States are to adopt and
publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with the directive no later than one
year after the date of its adoption.
That time-limit expired on 20 December 1994 without the           Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission
Kingdom of Belgium having adopted and published the                      of the European Communities against Ireland
necessary provisions in order to comply therewith.                                         (Case C-331/98)
                                                                                (98/C 327/21)
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                  An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                  1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                  represented by Richard Wainwright, principal legal
Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission              adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                            Belgium                               member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                  Wagner, Kirchberg.
                       (Case C-329/98)
                        (98/C 327/20)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           Ð declare that by not prohibiting Irish sanitary
on 7 September 1998 by the Commission of the European                 authorities from making any direct discharges of List I
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal                substances to groundwater nor subjecting such
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in              authorities to any system of prior investigation and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  authorization for direct discharges of List II
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             substances, contrary, in particular, to Articles 3, 4 and


title: Case T-379/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015  — Innovation First v OHIM (NANO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark NANO — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Innovation First v OHIM (NANO)
   (Case T-379/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark NANO - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Innovation First, Inc. (Greenville, South Carolina, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2013 (Case R 1271/2012-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign NANO as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Innovation First, Inc. to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-37/15: Action brought on 23 January 2015  — Abertis Telecom Terrestre v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/41

         Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Abertis Telecom Terrestre v Commission
   (Case T-37/15)
   (2015/C 089/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena and M. Bolsa Ferruz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 of the decision in so far as it declares the existence of State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               consequently, annul the orders for the recovery of that aid set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main supporting arguments are those set out in Case T-36/15, Hispasat v Commission.


title: Case C-74/15: Order of the Court of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Guarantee contracts and contracts providing immovable property as security concluded with a credit institution by natural persons acting for purposes outside their trade, business or profession and having no connection of a functional nature with the commercial company for which they act as guarantor)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Order of the Court of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA and Others
   (Case C-74/15) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Guarantee contracts and contracts providing immovable property as security concluded with a credit institution by natural persons acting for purposes outside their trade, business or profession and having no connection of a functional nature with the commercial company for which they act as guarantor))
   (2016/C 038/25)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău

      Defendants: Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA Arad, Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare, Cristian Tarcău, Corina Tarcău, SC Magenta, in liquidation, SC Crisco SRL

      Operative part of the order

   Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive may apply to a contract providing immovable property as security or to a guarantee contract concluded between a natural person and a credit institution in order to guarantee the obligations which a commercial company has entered into with that institution in the context of a credit agreement, where that natural person has acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession and has no connection in terms of function with that company.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-100/12: Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Almashreq Investment v Council

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/30

         Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Almashreq Investment v Council
   (Case T-100/12)
   2012/C 151/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Almashreq Investment Co. (Joint Stock Holding Company) (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Jacob Meijer BV, Eagle International Freight BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of sound cards for computers — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Jacob Meijer BV, Eagle International Freight BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification of sound cards for computers - Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98)
   (2005/C 217/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decisions of 13 July 2004, received at the Court on 19 July 2004, in the proceedings between Jacob Meijer BV (C-304/04), Eagle International Freight BV (C-305/04) and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges, J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar; gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff are invalid in so far as they classify sound cards for computers such as those at issue in the main proceedings under heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-226/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — PTV v OHIM (MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — PTV v OHIM (MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company)
   (Case T-226/06) (1)

   (2008/C 142/68)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 249, 11.10.2006.


title: Case T-411/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Laufen Austria v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Fine imposed jointly and severally on a parent company and its subsidiary — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Calculation of the ceiling on the basis solely of the turnover of the subsidiary for the period of the infringement prior to its acquisition by the parent company)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Laufen Austria v Commission
   (Case T-411/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Fine imposed jointly and severally on a parent company and its subsidiary - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Calculation of the ceiling on the basis solely of the turnover of the subsidiary for the period of the infringement prior to its acquisition by the parent company))
   (2017/C 357/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Laufen Austria AG (Wilhelmsburg, Austria) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Jimeno Fernández and F. Castilla Contreras, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) and, second, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes at EUR 4 788 001 the portion of the fine imposed on Laufen Austria AG for which it is held individually liable in respect of the infringement committed during the period between 12 October 1994 and 28 October 1999;

               2.

               Orders Laufen Austria AG and the European Commission each to bear their own respective costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-583/16 and C-584/16: Order of the President of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC (C-583/16), Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC (C-584/16) v Enedis, SA, in the presence of: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC (C-583/16), Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC (C-584/16) v Enedis, SA, in the presence of: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA
   (Joined Cases C-583/16 and C-584/16) (1)

   (2017/C 283/42)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case T-715/14: Action brought on 9 October 2014 — NK Rosneft a.o. v Council

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/40

         Action brought on 9 October 2014 — NK Rosneft a.o. v Council
   (Case T-715/14)
   (2014/C 431/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russie); RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow); RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhniy Sakhalin, Russia); RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow); and Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul articles 1(2)(b), (c) and (d) and (3), and annex III of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014;

               —

               annul articles 3, 3a, 4(3)-(4), annex II, article 5(2)(b), (c), (d) and (3) and annex VI, and article 11 of the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014;

               —

               further or alternatively, annul the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP in so far as they apply to the Applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to provide reasons sufficient to permit a full review of either the substantive or procedural legality of the provisions which the Applicants seek to annul (the ‘relevant measures’), and breached the Applicants’ defence rights and rights to effective judicial protection with regard to the relevant measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no material produced by the Council which could or does justify the relevant measures as having a legitimate or lawful aim.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the relevant measures are in breach of the EU’s international law obligations under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia and/or the GATT.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked competence to adopt the relevant measures, or those measures are unlawful, because no rational connection is either evident or provided by way of reasons between the stated aim of the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and the means chosen to further it.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 does not give proper effect to the provisions of the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP in that the Council was not competent to adopt or, if it was competent, could not lawfully adopt, Article 3 of the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 in that on its face (at least) it conflicts with the underlying provisions of the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, namely its Article 4.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council had no competence to adopt, or could not lawfully adopt, relevant measures because they infringed the fundamental principle of equal treatment and non-arbitrariness.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council had no competence to adopt, or could not lawfully adopt, relevant measures because they are not proportionate to, or have not been shown to be proportionate to, the aim pursued by the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP. Further, as a consequence of their lack of proportionality, the provisions (a) encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences under the CCP and (b) constitute an impermissible interference with the Applicants’ fundamental rights to property and/or their freedom to conduct a business.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that, particularly in the absence of any explanation for the relevant measures and their nature, at least part of the purpose of the contested provision could have been to serve an aim other than the stated aim, and that in one further separate respect the powers conferred by the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP have been misused.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the constitutional guarantee of legal certainty, including in the lack of clarity of key terms in the relevant measures.


5.12.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 378/15
     to it on 20 December 1996, the Kingdom of Belgium               The applicant claims that the Court should:
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                   1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     Articles 2 and 3 of the said decision; and                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                         Council Directive of 22 June 1994 on the protection
                                                                         of young persons at work (1), and/or by failing to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      inform the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic
                                                                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
The action for annulment of the Commission's Decision of                 and
4 December 1996 (1) does not have a suspensive effect.
The only argument on which a Member State may rely in                2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
order not to comply with a decision ordering recovery of
aid unlawfully paid is that it is absolutely impossible for          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the decision to be complied with correctly.
                                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
The Commission maintains, first, that, the Kingdom of                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
Belgium has not truly complied with its duty to cooperate            upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
in good faith. Even although it had established contacts             Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
with the Commission in order to explain the possible                 down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
problems caused by the recovery of the aid unlawfully                expired on 22 June 1996 without the Italian Republic
paid out and to outline a proposal for staggered                     having brought into force the necessary provisions in
repayment, and even although the Commission had not                  order to comply with the directive referred to in the
objected to that proposal, the Kingdom of Belgium                    Commission's application.
suddenly took the step of abandoning the framework of
                                                                     (1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
cooperation with the Commission in good faith and of
arguing before the Court that it was absolutely impossible
for the decision to be complied with.
Second, the Commission maintains that the Kingdom of
Belgium has not made the slightest approach to the                          Removal from the register of Case C-51/98 (1)
undertakings in issue with a view to recovering the aid.
Third, it maintains that the Kingdom of Belgium has not                                       (98/C 378/26)
proposed any alternative means of implementing the
decision whereby the difficulties encountered could have             By order of 8 September 1998 the President of the Court
been resolved.                                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-51/98 (reference for a
(1) Case C-75/97 (OJ C 131, 26.4.1997, p. 5).                        preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):
                                                                     Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v.
                                                                     Works in The World Srl.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
Action brought on 26 October 1998 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-385/98)
                        (98/C 378/25)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-255/98 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 378/27)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  By order of 12 October 1998 the President of the Court of
26 October 1998 by the Commission of the European                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and                   removal from the register of Case C-255/98: Kingdom of
Antonio Aresu, Legal Advisers acting as Agents, with an              Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-492/10: Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Melli Bank v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/53

         Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-492/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 5 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul paragraph 3 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               declare Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (3) inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. Furthermore, the applicant applies, in accordance with Article 277 TFUE, for the inapplicability of Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant argues that the contested regulation and decision were adopted in violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection since the reasons given by the Council are insufficient for the applicant to understand the basis on which it has been designated and has consequently had its assets frozen. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council has failed to provide it with the evidence and/or documents from the file on which the Council has relied and accordingly the applicant has been unable to make effective representations regarding its designation.
   Second, the applicant contends that the substantive criteria for its designation are not met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The applicant states that it is not ‘owned or controlled’ by an entity engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran’s alleged proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or development of nuclear weapon delivery systems within the meaning given to the expression ‘owned or controlled’ in Melli Bank v Council Court’s judgment (T-246/08) (4).
   Third, the applicant argues that in so far as Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 and/or Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP are mandatory and require the Council to designate any subsidiary of a designated parent, the same are unlawful.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that the substantive criteria for the designation of its parent and therefore the applicant are not met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The applicant argues that in so far as its parent is successful in its challenges to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 (5) (Case T-35/10) (6) and Council Decision 2008/475/EC (7) (Case T-390/08 (8)), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP must be annulled in so far as they apply to the applicant.
   Fifth, the applicant claims that its designation and the freezing of all its assets worldwide have no rational relationship with the aim being pursued by the Council and violates its right to property. Further it contends that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate in that they inflict considerable harm on the applicant and are not the least restrictive means that could have been employed.

      (1)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39

      (2)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1

      (4)  Joint Cases T-246/08 et T-332/08, Melli Bank v Council, [2009] ECR II-2629, currently under appeal as Case C-380/09 P, Melli Bank v Council, OJ 2009 C 282, p. 30

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC, OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31

      (6)  Case T-35/10, Bank Melli Iran v Council, OJ 2010 C 100, p. 47

      (7)  Council Decision of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29

      (8)  Joint Case T-390/08, Bank Melli Iran v Council, [2009] ECR II-3967, currently under appeal as Case C-548/09 P, Bank Melli Iran v Council, OJ 2010 C 80, p. 10


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2002 in Case T-194/00: Nuno Antas de Campos v European Parliament (Official — Rejection for definitive termination of service — Action for annulment and damages)

text:
C 180/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           27.7.2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 16 May 2002
                           of 14 May 2002
                                                                            in Case T-17/01: Georgios Rounis v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-194/00: Nuno Antas de Campos v European
                             Parliament (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Transfer of a part of remuneration in the
                                                                            currency of a Member State other than the country in which
                                                                            the institution has its seat — Articles 17(2)(a) and (b) of
(Official — Rejection for definitive termination of service                 Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined application)
             — Action for annulment and damages)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/37)
                           (2002/C 180/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            In Case T-17/01, Georgios Rounis, an official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service
                                                                            in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart)
In Case T-194/00: Nuno Antas de Campos, an official of                      — first, application for annulment of the Commission’s
the European Parliament, residing in Lisbon, represented by                 decision of 24 February 2000 limiting transfer of the appli-
C. Botelho Moniz, lawyer, against the European Parliament                   cant’s emoluments to the United Kingdom to 19 % of his net
(Agents: R. Da Silva Passos and J.F. De Wachter) — Application              monthly earnings and of Conclusion No 102/84 of the College
for annulment of the decision of 3 September 1999, rejecting                of Heads of Administration relating to the transfer of the
the applicant’s request for termination of service under Council            emoluments of officials and resident agents and, second,
Regulation (EC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 2688/95 introducing                       application for damages and interest for the material damage
special measures to terminate the service of officials of the               allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
European Communities as a result of the accession of Austria,               Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 280, p. 1), and for compen-                   P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator for the Registrar,
sation for damage — the Court of First Instance (Second                     has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 2002,              1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 24 February 2000
in which it:                                                                      limiting the transfer of the applicant’s emoluments to the
                                                                                United Kingdom to 19 % of his monthly earnings;
1.     Dismisses the claims for annulment as unfounded;                     2.    Orders the Commission to make good the damage suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as the result of the decision of 24 February 2000,
                                                                                with interest for late payment at the annual rate of 5,25 %
2.     Dismisses the claims for compensation for damage caused by                 annually until payment;
       the contested decision as unfounded;
                                                                            3.    Orders the parties to submit to the Court of First Instance,
                                                                                within five months of the date of delivery of the present
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the claim for compensation as                   judgment, the amounts to be paid, drawn up by common
       inadmissible;                                                              accord;
                                                                            4.    Failing agreement, orders the parties to submit details on the
4.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                amounts proposed within that same time-limit;
                                                                            5.    Reserves the decision on costs.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, p. 17.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: Case T-276/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Edison v EUIPO — Eolus Vind (e) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Edison v EUIPO — Eolus Vind (e)
   (Case T-276/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 129/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Martucci, F. Boscariol de Roberto and I. Gatto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eolus Vind AB (publ) (Hässleholm, Sweden)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2015 (Case R 2358/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Edison and Eolus Vind.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Edison SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-321/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos (A+) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark A+ — Earlier Community word mark AirPlus International — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos (A+)
   (Case T-321/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark A+ - Earlier Community word mark AirPlus International - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 100/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze and T. Wittman, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 (Case R 310/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-367/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 55/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
—     Order the Commission to carry out the partition scheme              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of bailiff M of 19 August 2002, at least in relation to the
      amount of his pension, which under Belgian law has
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September
      protection against the seizure order of bailiff V of
                                                                                2002 in the appeal procedure R 338/2001-1;
      18 March 2002;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      for the loss (including that incurred through interest
      payments on bridging loans and non-material damage at
      the discretion of the court, not being less than EUR 100,
      together with costs incurred in enforcing his rights)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      arising from the fact that, since May 2002, his pension
      has been entirely deposited with bailiff M, although the
      Commission is or must be aware that such conduct is
                                                                          Community trade mark         Word mark ‘SnTEM’ — Appli-
      unlawful, the amount of compensation for material
                                                                          applied for:                 cation No 1421734
      damage on account of the continuing illegality to be
      determined in the event of the declaration being granted.
                                                                          Goods or services:           Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision before       the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                          Board of Appeal:             examiner
The applicant, a former temporary servant now in retirement,
draws a pension from the Communities. He claims that the                  Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of appeal
Commission has unlawfully made maintenance payments out                   Appeal:
of his pension to his former wives.
                                                                          Pleas in law:                —      Infringement                of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
The applicant argues that, in making deductions from his                                                      Regulation (EC) No 40/94
pension, the Commission disregarded the prescribed legal and                                                  since the mark is not descrip-
administrative rules and infringed his right to a proper hearing.                                             tive.
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke                        Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-367/02)                                                          (Case T-368/02)
                         (2003/C 55/77)                                                            (2003/C 55/78)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                       9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.                 represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.


title: Case C-535/10 P: Order of the President of the Court of 14 November 2011 — 4care AG v Office For Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs), Laboratorios Diafarm, SA

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 November 2011 — 4care AG v Office For Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs), Laboratorios Diafarm, SA
   (Case C-535/10 P) (1)

   2012/C 49/37
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-126/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 10 March 2011 — Inno NV v Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 10 March 2011 — Inno NV v Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA
   (Case C-126/11)
   2011/C 152/26
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inno NV

      Defendant: Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA

      Question referred

   Must Directive 2005/29 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), and in particular Articles 1, 2(d), 3(1) and 5 thereof, be interpreted so that those articles are incompatible with national legislation such as the first and third paragraphs of Article 53(1) of the Wet van 14 juli 1991 betreffende de handelspraktijken en de voorlichting en bescherming van de consument (Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices and consumer information and protection), which, for the sectors mentioned in Article 52(1) of that Law, prohibits traders, during the restricted periods of 15 November to 2 January and 15 May to 30 June, and regardless of the place or the means of communication used, from making announcements of price reductions, as well as announcements suggestive of a price reduction, as referred to in Article 42 of that Law, and also from making announcements and suggestions of price reductions before the commencement of a restricted period which would take effect during that restricted period, even though the measure concerned, despite the dual objective put forward by the national legislature, namely, on the one hand, the protection of the interests of consumers and, on the other hand, the regulation of the competitive relations between traders, in reality serves to regulate the competitive relations between traders and, considering the other guarantees provided by the legislation, does not contribute effectively to consumer protection?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case T-648/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015  — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GLISTEN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)
   (Case T-648/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GLISTEN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IOIP Holdings LLC (Fort Wayne, United States) (represented by: H. Dhondt and S. Kinart, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1028/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GLISTEN as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IOIP Holdings LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-309/07: Action brought on 15 August 2007 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/24

         Action brought on 15 August 2007 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-309/07)
   (2007/C 235/45)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels, M. de Grave and Y de Vries, as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 2007/395 insofar as it is based on the Commission's view that it is necessary for the Commission to approve under Article 95(6) EC the maintenance of the Netherlands rules relating to the use of short-chain chlorinated paraffins that are not listed in Directive 2002/45;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and arguments relied upon are similar to those in Case T-234/04 Netherlands v Commission (previously Case C-103/04) (1).

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 94, p. 30.


title: Case T-268/00: Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Conepo Servizi s.c.a r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/29
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Conepo Servizi                       —     annul Article 5 of that decision;
s.c.a r.l. against Commission of the European Communi-
                                 ties                                       —     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of the decision in so far
                                                                                as it refers to the tax concessions under Article 2 of the
                          (Case T-268/00)                                         Ministerial Decree of 5 August 1994 in Article 1 of the
                                                                                operative part of the decision;
                          (2000/C 355/64)                                   —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                            forward in Case T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Conepo
Servizi s.c.a r.l., represented by Alfredo Biagini, of the Rome             Carità v Commission and in Case T-235/00 Codess Sociale
Bar, and Silvia Scarpa and Paolo Pettinelli, of the Venice Bar.             and Others v Commission (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 (1) Not yet published.
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Italgas against
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in                         Commission of the European Communities
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).                                               (Case T-270/00)
(1) Not yet published.                                                                               (2000/C 355/66)
                                                                                (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
                                                                            European Communities on 17 September 2000 by Italgas,
Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Baglioni Hotels
                                                                            represented by Massimo Merola and Claudio Tesauro, of the
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            Rome Bar, and Maurizio Pappalardo, of the Brussels Bar.
     (Case T-269/00, T-271/00, T-272/00 and T-273/00)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 355/65)                                   —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 2000 by Baglioni
                                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Hotels, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the Venice Bar,
Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, and Maurizio Pappalardo,                   Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
                                                                            Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 (1) Not yet published.
—     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
      No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999;


title: Case C-169/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 April 2001 by RAG Aktiengesellschaft against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-156/98 between RJB Mining plc and Commission of the European Communities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany

text:
30.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 186/7
      emanation of State, or can this only be done after one                First, the CFI’s findings on admissibility virtually set aside the
      has decided that the Directive (because, for example, it              requirement that an applicant must show individual concern.
      fails the tests of justiciability necessary to generate direct        The CFI distorts the relevant facts and applies the wrong legal
      effect) cannot be invoked against the defendant?                      test. If this Court were to adopt the CFI’s reasoning, in
                                                                            particular its speculation on and distortion of the facts, hardly
(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi-           any applicant would be denied standing. Any test which
    mation of the laws of member States relating to insurance against       excludes hardly anyone is not a good legal test, and not
    civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the     supported by the past jurisprudence of the Court.
    enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ
    L 103, 2.5.1972, p. 1).
(2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the            Second, on the substance of the case, the CFI held that, in the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to              context of merger proceedings under Article 66(2) ECSC
    insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor        (which is concerned principally with the power potentially to
    vehicles (OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17).                                    determine prices, control or restrict production and the
                                                                            hindering of effective competition), the Commission is obliged
                                                                            to consider the adequacy or sufficiency of the price actually
                                                                            paid for the acquired undertaking, and to evaluate, in the
                                                                            course of the process and timetable for merger authorisation,
                                                                            whether such price constituted State aid.
Appeal brought on 19 April 2001 by RAG Aktienge-
sellschaft against the judgment delivered on 31 January
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                    This constitutes a major change in the evaluation of mergers
of the European Communities in case T-156/98 (1)                            and represents an unlawful fusion of two distinct procedures,
between RJB Mining plc and Commission of the European                       with different timetables, rights of representation, consultation,
Communities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and                        and remedies. The CFI did not reason why the price paid could
                    Federal Republic of Germany                             conceivably be State aid. Further, no reason was given
                                                                            why authorisation of the merger should be annulled as a
                           (Case C-169/01 P)                                consequence of a price constituting State aid, in the absence of
                                                                            any of the considerations contained in Article 66(2) ECSC.
                            (2001/C 186/11)
                                                                            There is no legal mandate or authority to inject extraneous
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001                 considerations such as the adequacy of consideration and the
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  existence or otherwise of State aid into the evaluation of
European Communities in case T-156/98 between RJB Mining                    mergers under the ECSC Treaty (or, for that matter, under
plc and Commission of the European Communities, supported                   Regulation 4064/89/EEC (2), as amended). If the judgment
by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany,                  were to stand, the merger procedure would be subject to
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     matters alien to the analysis of market conditions, and
Communities on 19 April 2001 by RAG Aktiengesellschaft,                     undertakings would be burdened by legal uncertainty as to the
established in Essen, Germany, represented by Thomas Sharpe                 criteria to be used in the procedure. Moreover, this uncertainty
QC, and Andreas Weitbrecht and Sven Valker, Rechtsanwälte.                  would not serve to secure the coherent application of compe-
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                 tition and State aid rules.
—     quash the judgment in full and order RJB to pay all costs.
      Alternatively, the Appellant submits that the judgment                The CFI committed a further serious error of law in annulling
      should be quashed to the extent that it relates to the                the Merger Decision in its entirety, rather than annulling only
      approval of the partial merger between RAG and Preussag               the part relevant to the approval of the RAG/SBW merger. The
      Anthrazit.                                                            annulment of the approval of the RAG/Preussag Anthrazit
                                                                            merger cannot be justified and the judgment lacks any
                                                                            reasoning to that effect.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The judgment sets wholly new criteria for, first, the evaluation            (1) OJ C 358, 21.11.1998, p. 23.
of mergers by the Commission, and, second, any subsequent                   (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
challenge to merger decisions. The CFI’s approach is deeply                     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
flawed.                                                                         30.12.1989, p. 1).


title: Case C-430/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2016 by Bank Mellat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13: Bank Mellat v Council

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/7

         Appeal brought on 2 August 2016 by Bank Mellat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13: Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case C-430/16 P)
   (2016/C 371/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bank Mellat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, R. Blakeley, J. MacLeod, Barristers)

      Other parties to the proceedings:

   Council of the European Union,
   European Commission,
   United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment;

               —

               Annul Article 1(15) of Regulation 1263 (1) either in its entirety or insofar as it applies to the Bank;

               —

               Declare that Article 1(6) of Decision 635 (2) is inapplicable to the Bank; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appellant, Bank Mellat (the ‘Bank’), appeals against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13 Bank Mellat v Council EU:T:2016:331 (the ‘Judgment’). In summary, the Bank contends that the General Court erred in failing to uphold its application to annul or declare inapplicable to the Bank various measures constituting a ‘Financial Embargo’ on the Bank, namely:

                           (1)

                           Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012.

                           (2)

                           Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP.

               2.

               In particular, the Bank has identified three grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the Bank’s application:

                           (1)

                           The General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the requirement of ‘necessity’ in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) (1st Ground).

                           (2)

                           The General Court erred in finding that the Financial Embargo was proportionate, entailing a number of further specific errors of law (2nd Ground).

                           (3)

                           The General Court erred in holding that the Financial Embargo was compliant with other general principles of EU law (3rd Ground).

               3.

               The Bank has also identified two broad grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the admissibility of parts of the Bank’s application:

                           (1)

                           The General Court wrongly severed elements of the Financial Embargo and held the Bank’s application in respect of them to be inadmissible (4th Ground).

                           (2)

                           The General Court erred in finding in particular that there was no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 275 TFEU to determine the Bank’s challenge to Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP (5th Ground).

               4.

               The Bank respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment and make the order sought by the Bank.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

      OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34

      (2)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

      OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58


title: Case T-681/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/67

         Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)
   (Case T-681/15)
   (2016/C 038/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Elmar Wolf SA (Wissembourg, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a wolf’s head) — Community trade mark application No 4 971 511

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1252/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-6/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/24

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-6/09)
   (2009/C 69/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (1) or, in any case, by not communicating all of them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The deadline for transposition of Directive 2005/60/EC expired on 15 December 2007. When this action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any case, had not communicated them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.


title: Case C-410/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 1 August 2011 — Pedro Espada Sánchez and Others v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 1 August 2011 — Pedro Espada Sánchez and Others v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.
   (Case C-410/11)
   2011/C 290/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pedro Espada Sánchez and Others

      Defendant: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the limit of 1 000 Special Drawing Rights per passenger, laid down in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concerning the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage of baggage, considered in conjunction with Article 3(3) of that convention, be interpreted as a maximum limit for each individual passenger where a number of passengers travelling check in their shared baggage together, regardless of whether there are fewer pieces of checked baggage than there are actual travellers?

               2.

               Or, on the contrary, must the limit to damages laid down in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention be interpreted as meaning that, for each piece of checked baggage, only one passenger may be entitled to claim compensation and that, accordingly, the maximum limit applied must be that fixed for a single passenger even if it is proved that the lost baggage identified by a single tag belongs to more than one passenger?


title: Case C-20/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement of workers — Income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence — Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence — Pension and health insurance contributions levied on income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence — Deduction of those contributions — Condition relating to the absence of a direct link with exempted tax revenues)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg
   (Case C-20/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of workers - Income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence - Pension and health insurance contributions levied on income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Deduction of those contributions - Condition relating to the absence of a direct link with exempted tax revenues))
   (2017/C 277/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel

      Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a taxpayer residing in that Member State and working for the public administration of another Member State may not deduct from the income tax basis of assessment in her Member State of residence the pension and health insurance contributions deducted from her wages in the Member State of employment, in contrast to comparable contributions paid to the social security fund of her Member State of residence, where, under the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the two Member States, the wages must not be taxed in the worker’s Member State of residence and merely increase the tax rate to be applied to other income.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-269/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Savings-pension bonus — Full liability to tax)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-269/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Savings-pension bonus - Full liability to tax)
   2009/C 267/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Blaschke and M. Lumma, Agents, W. Wellisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC, and of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition I 1968(II), p. 475) — National legislation concerning incentive allowances for savings pensions, the grant of which is conditional upon full liability to taxation in the Member State, providing for the repayment of the allowance on termination of such liability and prohibiting the use of capital accrued in accordance with such a scheme for the acquisition of residential property occupied by the owner unless the property is situated within the territory of that Member State.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by introducing and maintaining the provisions for complementary pensions in Paragraphs 79 to 99 of the Federal Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and Article 18 EC, in so far as those provisions:

                           —

                           deny cross-border workers and their spouses the right to the savings pension bonus, unless they are fully liable to tax in that Member State;

                           —

                           prohibit cross-border workers from using the subsidised capital for the acquisition or construction of an owner-occupied dwelling unless the property is situated in Germany, and

                           —

                           provide that the bonus be reimbursed on termination of full liability to tax in that Member State;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case C-323/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-134/13: Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/24

         Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-134/13: Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-323/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Sitre Srl, New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-134/13; and

               —

               Annul the contested decision or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant’s Application for annulment; and

               —

               Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for annulment of the Contested Decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellant’s situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

               —

               The General Court made contradictory and erroneous statements with respect to the need to have regard to risk assessment pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH (1), leading to a misinterpretation of the same.

               —

               The General Court made contradictory statements and departed from established case law on the status and weight of guidance documents in interpreting what is meant by ‘equivalent level of concern’ under Article 57(f) of the same.

               —

               The General Court flawed reliance on Article 60(2) of REACH led to insufficient reasoning.

               —

               The General Court applied the wrong legal text in dismissing the arguments relating to worker and consumer exposure, thereby misapplying Article 57(f).

         For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-134/13 should be set aside and the Contested Decision should be annulled.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Autorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing an European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC AND 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396 p. 1


title: Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/15

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers
   (2005/C 205/28)
   On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance decided to establish five Chambers of five Judges and five Chambers of three Judges for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006 and to assign Judges to them as follows:

      First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr García-Valdecasas, Mr Cooke, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;
   First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr García-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Mr Cooke, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;

      Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

      Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber,

               (a)

               Mr Meij and Ms Pelikánová, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Forwood and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

      Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges;

      Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Ms Tiili and Mr Czúcz, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Azizi and Ms Cremona, Judges;

      Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Mr Mengozzi, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Vadapalas, Judges;

      Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Legal, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Ms Lindh and Mr Vadapalas, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Mengozzi and Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges;

         Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

      Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber

               (a)

               Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Jürimäe, Judges

               (b)

               Mr Dehousse and Mr Šváby, Judges.

         In the First Chamber sitting with three Judges, the Judges who sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the Chamber will be designated in turn, in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, subject to the presence of connected cases. In the Second to Fifth Chambers sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit either with the Judges referred to at (a) above or with those referred to at (b) above, depending on which of those formations the Judge-Rapporteur belongs to. For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of one or other of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the presence of connected cases.
   In cases where the written procedure was completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before 1 October 2005, the First Chamber sitting with three Judges shall continue to sit with the same composition as previously for the oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.
   Composition of the Grand Chamber
   On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006 the 13 Judges of whom the Grand Chamber is composed shall be the President of the Court of First Instance, the Presidents of the IInd, IIIrd, IVth and Vth Chambers, Extended Compositions, who would have had to hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed of five Judges, and as many other Judges as necessary to complete the Grand Chamber, designated by the President of the Court of First Instance, from among the Judges of each of the other Chambers, in the order of precedence of those Judges within their Chambers according to seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in a rota applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges are elected.
   Plenary session
   On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that where, following the designation of an Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance, applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges are elected, in accordance with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in reverse order to the order in which the Judges rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it is the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
   Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing an application for interim measures
   On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge García-Valdecasas to replace the President of the Court of First Instance for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006.
   Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
   On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance laid down criteria as follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure.

               1.

               Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.

               2.

               Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following four separate rotas, namely:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;

                           —

                           for cases concerning intellectual property rights, as envisaged by Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

         In applying those rotas, the First Chamber shall not be taken into consideration at each fifth turn.
   The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case C-108/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Plant protection products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel import — Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt
   (Case C-108/13) (1)

   ((Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Plant protection products - Marketing authorisation - Parallel import - Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State))
   (2015/C 007/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mac GmbH

      Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import authorisation may not be granted for a plant protection product which does not have, in the exporting Member State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.