title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2003 in Case C-305/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH (Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Field of application — Factoring — Factoring company purchasing debts and assuming the risk of the debtors' default)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/9
On a proper construction of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council               1.    On a proper construction of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of                       388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                   of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the grant, by               system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, a
the owner of premises to an owner of a cigarette vending machine, of                business which purchases debts, assuming the risk of the
the right to install the machine, and to operate and maintain it in the             debtors' default, and which, in return, invoices its clients in
premises for a period of two years, in a place nominated by the owner               respect of commission pursues an economic activity for the
of the premises, in return for a percentage of the gross profits on the             purposes of Articles 2 and 4 of that directive, so that it has
sales of cigarettes and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no            the status of taxable person and thus enjoys the right to deduct
rights of possession or control being granted to the owner of the                   tax under Article 17 thereof.
machine other than those expressly set out in the agreement between
the parties, does not amount to a letting of immovable property within
the meaning of that provision.                                                2.    An economic activity by which a business purchases debts,
                                                                                assuming the risk of the debtors' default, and, in return, invoices
                                                                                its clients in respect of commission, constitutes ‘debt collection
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                         and factoring’ within the meaning of the final clause of
                                                                                Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) and is
                                                                                therefore excluded from the exemption laid down by that
                                                                                provision.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 26 June 2003                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-305/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                 (Sixth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-
                  Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH (1)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
(Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Field of
application — Factoring — Factoring company purchasing                        in Case C-315/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      debts and assuming the risk of the debtors' default)                    the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Gesellschaft für Abfallent-
                                                                              sorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) v Österreichische Auto-
                                                                                bahnen- und Schnellstraßen- AG (ÖSAG) (1)
                             (2003/C 184/16)
                                                                              (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
                     (Language of the case: German)                           procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
                                                                              works contracts — Power of the review body to examine any
                                                                              infringement of its own motion — Directive 93/36/EEC —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     Procedures for the award of public supply contracts —
                       the European Court Reports)                                            Eligibility criteria — Award criteria)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/17)
In Case C-305/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanz-                                       (Language of the case: German)
amt Groß-Gerau and MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH, on
the interpretation of certain provisions of the Sixth Council
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                        the European Court Reports)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, F. Macken and                          In Case C-315/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                            Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) and


title: Case C-56/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre, France, by judgment of that court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine

text:
24.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 95/7
(3) Does that non-aggregability render the directive inoperat-             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      ive or result in its partial disapplication?                         des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre, France, by
                                                                           judgment of that court of 23 November 2000 in the case
(4) Can that non-aggregability be allowed in the context of                of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie
      the power of the Member States to impose a ceiling on                                       des Hauts de Seine
      the guarantee of payment of workers’ claims (Article 3(4)),
      having regard to the fact that the Italian legislature has                                     (Case C-56/01)
      already imposed a ceiling by means of Article 2(2) of the
      legislative decree at issue?                                                                   (2001/C 95/12)
(5) Consequently, must the reference to the ‘maximum                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      amount of the special supplementary pay’ in the said                 European Communities by a judgement of the Tribunal des
      Article 2(2) be regarded as being made merely for formal             Affaires de Sécurité Sociale (Social Security Court), Nanterre,
      or accounting purposes or is it an incorporative reference           of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
      (with the consequent inclusion in Legislative Decree                 Registry on 9 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
      No 80/1992 of the provisions giving effect to the                    case of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie
      special wage supplement, including the so-called non-                des Hauts de Seine, on the following question;
      aggregability rule)?
                                                                           ‘Is Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) compatible
(6) Finally, may non-aggregability be regarded as allowed in               with Articles 59 [now, after amendment, Article 49 EC] and
      the context of the power of the Member States to adopt               60 [now Article 50 EC] of the Treaty of Rome? Consequently,
      the measures necessary to avoid abuses (Article 10(a))?              is the Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine
                                                                           entitled to refuse Ms Inizan reimbursement of the costs of
                                                                           psychosomatic pain treatment in Essen, Germany, following
(1) Council Directive 80/987 of 20 October 1980 on the approxi-            an unfavourable opinion from the National Medical Officer?’
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection
    of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer —
    OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.                                                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                               application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
                                                                               self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
                                                                               within the Community (amended and updated version, OJ 1997
                                                                               L 28, p. 4).


title: Case C-92/17 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2017 by Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15, Abertis Telecom Terrestre S.A. and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. v European Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2017 by Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15, Abertis Telecom Terrestre S.A. and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. v European Commission
   (Case C-92/17 P)
   (2017/C 129/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               give final judgment on the action for annulment and annul the Commission’s decision; and

               —

               order the European Commission and SES Astra to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the judgment under appeal, the General Court confirms a Commission decision on State aid concerning various measures adopted by the public authorities of the Spanish Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha in order to ensure that the digital terrestrial television (DTT) signal reaches remote and less urbanised areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission recognised that, in material terms, the market would not offer that service in the absence of public intervention. Nevertheless, it questioned whether the activity was classified as a service of general economic interest (SGEI) in the Spanish legislation, stating that, from a formal perspective, that activity had not been ‘clearly’ defined and commissioned by the public authorities. The Commission also stated that, in any event, those authorities were not empowered to opt for a certain technology when they organised the SGEI.
   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU and of Protocol No 26 annexed to the TFEU on Services of General Interest.
   In particular, the appellant submits that the General Court erred:

               —

               by going beyond the limit of the ‘manifest error’ in the assessment of the various measures defining and allocating SGEIs;

               —

               by unduly limiting the ‘wide discretion’ of the Member States, which applies both to the definition and the ‘organisation’ of the SGIE and therefore includes the choice of the methods of providing the SGIE and the choice of a specific technology, irrespective of whether they are set out in the measure defining the SGIE or in a separate measure;

               —

               by analysing the applicable Spanish law, distorting the meaning of the provisions analysed and of the case-law interpreting those provisions, and interpreting it in a manner which is manifestly contrary to its content and giving some information a scope which it should not have in relation to other information;

               —

               by failing to observe that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘commissioning’ of the SGEI to one or more undertakings may take place in one or more measures;

               —

               by failing to observe that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and its ‘commissioning’ do not require the use of a specific formula or expression, but rather a material and functional analysis; and

               —

               by quantifying the alleged advantage received as the total amount of the contracts concluded by the public authorities, disregarding the fact that that amount is not a non-repayable subsidy, but rather constitutes consideration for the goods and services that the undertaking in question provided to the State.


title: Case C-604/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of non-retroactivity — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction — Excessive duration of the proceedings)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-604/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of non-retroactivity - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction - Excessive duration of the proceedings))
   (2017/C 104/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Janssen and T. Kapp, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-98/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)
   (Case C-98/15)
   (2015/C 171/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Begoña Espadas Recio

      Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)

      Questions referred

               1.

               In accordance with the line of authority laid down in the judgment of 10 June 2010 of the Court of Justice in Bruno and Others (C-395/08 and C–396/08], must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (1) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work, be interpreted as applying to a contributory unemployment benefit like that provided for in Article 210 of the Spanish Ley General de Seguridad Social, funded exclusively by the contributions paid by the employee and the undertakings having employed her, and based on the periods of employment in respect of which contributions were paid in the six years preceding the legal situation of unemployment?

               2.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, in accordance with the case-law laid down in Bruno and Others, must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, as is the case of Article 3(4) of Real Decreto 625/1985 of 2 April (Rules on unemployment benefits), to which rule 4 of paragraph 1 of the seventh additional provision of the Ley General de Seguridad Social refers — in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work (work carried out only three days a week) — disregards, for the purposes of calculation of the duration of unemployment benefit, days not worked even though contributions were paid in respect of those days, with the resulting reduction in the duration of the benefit granted?

               3.

               Must the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex laid down in Article 4 of Directive 79/7 (2) be interpreted as prohibiting or precluding a national provision which, as is the case of Article 3(4) of [Real Decreto 625/1985], in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work (work carried out only three days a week), excludes days not worked from the calculation of days in respect of which contributions have been paid, with the resulting reduction in the duration of unemployment benefit?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.

      (2)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 1998 in Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Admissibility - Question of law - Question of fact - Competition - Information exchange system - Restriction of competition - Refusal to grant an exemption)

text:
C 234/10              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25.7.98
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11               Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court             L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar Ð
of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 October 1994 in          has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in which it:
Case T-35/92 John Deere v Commission [1994] ECR
II-97, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the                  1. Dismisses the appeal;
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, and Nicholas Forwood
QC Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                      2. Orders New Holland Ford Ltd to pay the costs.
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
                                                                  (1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the
Registrar Ð has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in
which it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
2. Orders John Deere Limited to pay the costs.                                           of 28 May 1998
                                                                  in Case C-3/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                          the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Criminal
                                                                  Division: criminal proceedings against John Charles
                                                                           Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead (1)
                                                                  (Tax provisions Ð Harmonisation of laws Ð Turnover
                                                                  taxes Ð Common system of value added tax Ð Sixth
                                                                  Directive Ð Scope Ð Supply of counterfeit perfume
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          products)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                     (98/C 234/19)
                       of 28 May 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd v Commission
              of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question              In Case C-3/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð             of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England and
Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an                  Wales) Criminal Division for a preliminary ruling in the
                           exemption)                             criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                  John Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead on
                         (98/C 234/18)                            the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                  of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                  Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
               (Language of the case: English)                    system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
                                                                  (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (First
                                                                  Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
In Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd, a company                 Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann, (Rapporteur),
governed by the laws of England and Wales, established in         Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Basildon (United Kingdom), represented by Mario                   Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998,
Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini        in which it has ruled:
and Francesca Moretti, of the Bologna Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Preussen, Côte d'Eich Ð appeal against           On a proper construction of Article 2 of Sixth Council
the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second               Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Chamber) of 27 October 1994 in Case T-34/92 Fiatagri              harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
and New Holland Ford v Commission [1994] ECR II-905,              to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to       uniform basis of assessment, VAT is payable on the supply
the proceedings being Commission of the European                  of counterfeit perfumes.
Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, and Leonard Hawkes, Solicitor           (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, (Rapporteur),


title: Case T-443/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM (PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark including the word elements PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños — Earlier national word marks PIRANHA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM (PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños)
   (Case T-443/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños’ - Earlier national word marks PIRANHA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 199/69)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Juan Bolaños Sabri (Torellano, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 21 September 2005 (Case R 1191/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés SA and Juan Bolaños Sabri the of 21 September 2005,
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 September 2005 (Case R 1191/2004-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés SA;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-231/06: Action brought on 30 August 2006 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/21

         Action brought on 30 August 2006 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-231/06)
   (2006/C 261/41)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2006) final of 22 June 2006 concerning the ad hoc measures implemented by the Netherlands for the purpose of financing public broadcasters in the Netherlands in relation to the State aid case No C 2/2004 (ex NN 170/2003), with the exception of Article 1(3) thereof;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant first alleges a breach of Article 88(2) EC and of the rights of the defence by reason of the fact that, in its decision, the Commission has substantially departed from the decision of 3 February 2004 (1) by which it initiated the formal investigation. The applicant goes on to submit that the subject-matter of the investigation and the method of calculation for determining the excess compensation have been altered.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 88(1), (2) and (3) EC, of Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999 (2) and Article 253 EC on the ground that the Commission incorrectly construed and applied the concepts of new aid and existing aid.
   The applicant submits that the Commission erred in classifying payments from specific funds and reserves as new aid. By so doing, it argues, the Commission failed to take account of the fact that such payments, in the same way as ordinary payments to public broadcasters, constitute part of media budget and do not amount to additional public funds. The applicant argues that the only difference, namely that these payments are made available for specific purposes, does not amount to a reason for distinguishing these payments from the rest of public financing.
   The applicant goes on to submit that the Commission incorrectly applies the notion of existing aid by classifying as new aid to the NOS the repayment of part of the reserves of the separate public regional broadcasters to a coordinating body, the NOS. According to the applicant, the reserves in question arose from the annual financing, which constitutes existing aid, and did not lose their character as existing aid simply by reason of the transfer to the NOS.
   By way of alternative submission, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 86(2) EC, a manifest misappraisal of the facts, and a breach of Article 253 EC by reason of the manner in which the Commission calculated the overcompensation of the public broadcasters.
   According to the applicant, the Commission was wrong to decide that the financing failed to comply with the principle of proportionality. The applicant states that the Commission had initially established that the financing did not lead to distortions of competition on commercial markets. There can for that reason be no question, the applicant submits, of overcompensation and no reimbursement is therefore necessary.
   The Commission also fixed the amount to be claimed back from the NOS's Broadcasting Reserve Fund. According to the applicant, however, the Commission thereby based itself on the presumption that this amount was still retained by the NOS as a reserve, whereas in fact it had already been spent to a large degree, in accordance with the applicable conditions.
   The Commission also established that the amount in reserves which the separate broadcasters had transferred to the NOS had to be recovered in full. The applicant submits that, in so doing, the Commission, without giving reasons, departed from its established conduct of allowing overcompensation of up to 10 %.

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 61, p. 8.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-165/02: Action brought on 29 June 2002 by José Lloris Maeso against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 261/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.10.2002
Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations for officials of the             Action brought on 29 June 2002 by José Lloris Maeso
European Communities — the President of the Court of First                     against Commission of the European Communities
Instance has made an order on 14 August 2002, in which he:
                                                                                (Case T-165/02)
1.    Dismisses the application for interim measures;
                                                                                (2002/C 261/31)
2.    Orders that costs are reserved.                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 29 June 2002 by José Lloris Maeso,
                                                                           residing in Valencia (Spain), represented by Julián Bosch
                                                                           Abarca, lawyers.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             INSTANCE
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the selection board for competition
                                                                                COM/A/10/01 (Law) of 2 May 2002, and that he be
                          of 16 July 2002                                        admitted to the next stage of that competition.
in Case T-207/02 R: Nicoletta Falcone v Commission of                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                  the European Communities
                                                                           The applicant in the present case is challenging the decision of
(Procedure for interim relief — Competition procedure —                    the selection board for COM/A/10/01 (Law), notified by letter
            Interim measures — Urgency — None)                             dated 2 May 2002, awarding him in respect of one of the
                                                                           selection tests in that competition, specifically test (a), marks
                                                                           below the minimum required to be admitted to the remainder
                         (2002/C 261/30)                                   of the tests for that competition.
                                                                           In support of his claim, the applicant alleges error in the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         marking of the abovementioned test (a).
In Case T-207/02 R: Nicoletta Falcone, residing in Florence
(Italy), represented by M. Condinanzi, lawyer, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and                Action brought on 14 August 2002 by Sunrider Corpor-
A. Dal Ferro) — application for an interim measure requiring               ation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
the Commission to invite the applicant to complete her                                                  Market
application for admission to the second set of tests in general
competition COM/A/10/01, in the field of law, fixed for
19 July 2002, from which she was excluded by decision of the                                        (Case T-242/02)
jury of 2 May 2002 informing her that she had not been
admitted to the written tests in the said competition — the                                         (2002/C 261/32)
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
16 July 2002, in which he:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2.    Orders that costs are reserved.                                      European Communities on 14 August 2002 by Sunrider
                                                                           Corporation, whose registered office is in Torrance, California
                                                                           (USA), represented by Nikolaos Dontas and Maria Bra, Lawyers,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-358/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 — Legal base — Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Part of the profits of a State company paid to the Iranian State)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-358/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal base - Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Part of the profits of a State company paid to the Iranian State))
   (2016/C 243/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bank of Industry and Mine (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Bank of Industry and Mine and the Council of the European Union to each pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Removal from the register of C-202/96

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 199/21
          Removal from the register of C-202/96 (')                             Removal from the register of C-273/96 ( l )
                           ( 97/C 199/55 )                                                         ( 97/C 199/58 )
By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Case C-202/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                from the register of Case C-273/96 ( Reference for a
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris ): Societe des Labora             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
toires Valda v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Regularisation              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
du Marche du Sucre ( FIRS ).                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Bartolomeo Terranova.
H OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-271/96 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/56 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-295/96 ( ' )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                               97/C 199/59 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-271/96 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 17 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-295/96 : Commission
against Antonio Nardi .
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(■) OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .                                       (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-272/96 H
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-296/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 199/57 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/60 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-272/96 ( Reference for a                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-296/96 ( Reference for a
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Alfredo Cipriani .                                             Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto Division )):
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola .
 (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case F-24/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — BN v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Action for annulment — Official of grade AD 14 occupying a post as Head of Unit — Allegation of psychological harassment against the Director-General — Mobility exercise — Refusal to accept appointment to a post of Advisor in another Directorate-General with the loss of the salary increase for Heads of Unit — Decision on a temporary transfer to another Advisor post — Interest of the service — Principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade — Action for compensation — Harm arising from non-decision-making conduct)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/67

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — BN v Parliament
   (Case F-24/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Action for annulment - Official of grade AD 14 occupying a post as Head of Unit - Allegation of psychological harassment against the Director-General - Mobility exercise - Refusal to accept appointment to a post of Advisor in another Directorate-General with the loss of the salary increase for Heads of Unit - Decision on a temporary transfer to another Advisor post - Interest of the service - Principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade - Action for compensation - Harm arising from non-decision-making conduct))
   2014/C 253/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BN (represented initially by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Blot, and subsequently by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and J.F. de Wachter, and subsequently by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and V. Montebello-Demogeot)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision adopted by the President of the European Parliament reassigning the applicant within the same Directorate-General of the Parliament from the post of Head of Unit to a post of Advisor to the Director of a Directorate and the claim for compensation for psychological harassment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear all of its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by BN.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 36.


title: Case T-286/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (toilet seat) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a toilet seat — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (toilet seat)
   (Case T-286/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a toilet seat - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 256/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ernst Kneidinger (Wilhering, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Topseat International (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl, and P. Böhner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2016 (Case R 1030/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Topseat International and Mr Kneidinger.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ernst Kneidinger to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-414/11: Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma v OHIM — Gervais Danone (Active)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/20

         Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma v OHIM — Gervais Danone (Active)
   (Case T-414/11)
   2011/C 298/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany) (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Levallois Perret, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2011 in Case R 683/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Active’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32 — application No 3 423 316.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Compagnie Gervais Danone.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘ACTIVIA’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement (i) of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) and Rule 19(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal incorrectly assumed that the earlier mark has average distinctive character; (ii) of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue; and (iii) of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 as the parallel decisions of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office and of other national authorities, cited by the applicant, were not taken into account when the defendant took its decision.


title: Case T-288/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission (Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Equal treatment — Transparency — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission
   (Case T-288/11) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Equal treatment - Transparency - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)
   2013/C 171/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Delvaux, V. Bertrand and M. Devos, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and V. Vanden Acker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2001 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the procurement procedure relating to the conclusion of a contract for maintenance of HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations at the Joseph-Bech Building in Luxembourg and awarding the contract to another tenderer (OJ 2010/S 241 367523)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-222/00: Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/31
—     The decision is inadequately reasoned and is in breach of                  games of chance, by their nature, since they require the
      the principle of proportionality.                                          presence and direct involvement of the customer, cannot
                                                                                circulate beyond the casino, in striking contrast to other
                                                                                games of chance such as lotteries, betting on horses, dogs
                                                                                and so forth. Accordingly, the activity pursued in the
(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to                Casino can never be described as commercial and made
    Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC            subject to free competition.
    Treaty, OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                           —     Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                reasons.
                                                                           —     Infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                the applicant was never mentioned by the Commission
                                                                                in the documents made public during the procedure.
                                                                                Since it considered itself excluded from the procedure, it
                                                                                saw no reason whatsoever to intervene and submit
Action brought on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Municipale                           observations.
di Venezia SpA against Commission of the European
                           Communities
                          (Case T-221/00)
                          (2000/C 316/59)
                                                                           Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr GmbH
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Case T-222/00)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (2000/C 316/60)
European Communities on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Munici-
pale di Venezia SpA, represented by Tito Ballerino, of the
Milan Bar.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the decision of the Com-                European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr
      mission of 25 November 1999 so far as it is concerned                GmbH, of Friolzheim (Federal Republic of Germany), rep-
                                                                           resented by Dr Christofer Hebel and Dr Gesine Walz, Rechtsan-
                                                                           wälte, of Messrs Moosmayer, Hess, Hoffmann & Partner,
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Stuttgart (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     annul the defendant’s decision of 26 June 2000 not to
                                                                                open the main procedure for an examination of State
The decision contested in the present case is the same as in                     aid in favour of Hydraulik Markranstädt GmbH (Case
Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v                              No NN 48/98) and Hydraulik Seehausen GmbH (Case
Commission.                                                                      No NN 49/98);
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     The conditions laid down in the first paragraph of
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 87 of the EC Treaty were not met. The applicant
      claims in that regard that, first, Casinò di Venezia retains
      a lawful monopoly, since its activity is not subject                 By the contested decision, the Commission declined to open
      to competition by virtue of statutory protection, and,               the main procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC for an
      secondly, that the services provided by the applicant                examination of the compatibility with the common market of
      consist only in making available to customers its gaming             State aid granted by the German authorities to Hydraulik
      areas free of charge. The applicants point out that such             Markranstädt and Hydraulik Seehausen.
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
The applicant states that the decision is of direct and individual        This decision has imposed a fine to the applicants, after having
concern to it in its capacity as a competitor of the recipient            considered they have infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty
undertakings in the European market for the production and                and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in
assembly of parking systems for motor vehicles. It claims that            agreements on prices, sales volumes and the exchange of
the decision in issue infringes its entitlement to a fair hearing,        individual information on sales volumes of synthetic lysing.
which can be safeguarded only by the opening of the main
examination procedure. The Commission unlawfully omitted
to investigate, by way of the main examination procedure, the             The applicants does not contest the factual background of the
                                                                          case. Instead, in support of its conclusions, they submit the
grounds on which a distortion of competition is alleged by
                                                                          following pleas on law:
the applicant in its complaint. The Commission based its
assessment on incorrect information contained in an expert’s
report. Lastly, it incorrectly defined the market concerned and           —     The Commission’s imposition of the fine in question, that
incorrectly assessed the number of competitors.                                 is calculated on the basis of a new ‘Fines Guidelines’ (1),
                                                                                infringes the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate
                                                                                expectations.
                                                                          —     Specifically, when imposing the fine, the Commission
                                                                                applied the Fines Guidelines retroactively, in opposition
                                                                                to statements made and correspondence provided by the
                                                                                Commission staff as part of the discussions leading to
                                                                                Kyowa’s cooperations pursuant to the Commission
Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko                                 Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH                                   cartel case (2).
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     In addition and in the alternative, the Commission has
                                                                                violated the principle of proportionality by imposing a
                         (Case T-223/00)                                        fine that takes into account Kyowa’s worldwide activities,
                                                                                and not the fact that only a small percentage of its
                         (2000/C 316/61)                                        worldwide turnover was generated in what is to be
                                                                                considered as the relevant market in the present case, i.e.
                                                                                the EEA.
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     In the base fine calculation the Commission has unduly
                                                                                refused to take into account the substantial fines already
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       imposed on the Applicants by the US authorities.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH,                            (1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
                                                                              Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 Article 65(5) of the ECSC
represented by Dr Cornelis Canenbley and Dr Kay Diedrich of                   Treaty (OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3).
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels.                                 (2) OJ C 207, of 18.7.1996, p. 4.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision No. C (2000) 1565 final of
      7 June 2000 in relation to the fine imposed or reduce the
      fine imposed upon the applicant as per the Court’s
      discretion;
                                                                          Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels
—     order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-            Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredi-
      ings.                                                               ents Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-224/00)
The applicants in the present case, a Company established                                           (2000/C 316/62)
under Japanese Law, and its European subsidiary, are involved,
inter alia, in animal health products. In relation to amino acids,
Kyowa Hakko currently has production facilities in Japan,                                     (Language of the case: English)
Hungary, Mexico and the USA. They seek the annulment of
Article 2 of the Commission decision dated 7 June 2000 —
C(2000) 1565 final, concerning a procedure under Article 81               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the EC Treaty (Case Comp/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Patrick Fischbach and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-271/97)

text:
6 . 12 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 370/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran<;oise Parmentier, of
                                                                        the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA, a
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari,
limited liability company governed by Portuguese law,                   30 Rue de Cessange.
whose capital is exclusively public, challenges the decision
whereby the Commission describes as aid the measures
taken in its favour, considers such aid incompatible with               The applicants claim that the Court should :
Article 92 of the EC Treaty and directs the Portuguese
State to abolish, within two weeks from notifications, the
aforementioned aid and to recover, within two months                    — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
from notifications, the said aid .                                           for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                             respect of household grants,
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                        — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
those relied on in T-204/97 EPAC v. Commission ('). The
applicant alleges infringement of Articles 190 and 92 of                     wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
the EC Treaty as well as the existence, in the present case ,                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
of arbitrary discrimination between public and private                       deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
undertakings, that it is legally impossible for the
Portuguese State to adopt the measures imposed by the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs.
contested decision and breach of the principles of
proportionality and of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(') Not yet published in the Official Journal .
                                                                        The applicants, officials of the Commission whose spouses
                                                                        receive a household grant, state that up until July 1996
                                                                        the defendant deducted, pursuant to Article 67 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations for officials, the household grant
                                                                        received by their spouses from the family allowances to
                                                                        which they were entitled . In July 19 96 , in consequence of
Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Patrick Fischbach                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
and others against the Commission of the European                       11 June 1996 in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, the
                           Communities                                  Commission published a staff notice inviting the persons
                                                                        concerned to apply to the administration for re-assessment
                        ( Case T-271/97)                                of their situation . Upon the applicants so doing, the
                          ( 97/C 370/23 )                               administration decided that, with effect from 1 July 1996,
                                                                        it would no longer deduct that grant from the household
                (Language of the case: French)                          allowance paid to the applicants. The applicants there
                                                                        upon requested retroactive reimbursement of all of the
                                                                        sums deducted together with default interest . Those
An action against the Commission of the European                        requests were rejected by the defendant.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 October
1997 by Patrick Fischbach , residing at Uebersyren                      The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the
( Luxembourg ), Alain Gengler, residing at Bettembourg                  applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as
( Luxembourg), Joseph Koener, residing at Olm                           those in Case T-181 /97 (').
( Luxembourg ), Gaby Pavant-Welter, residing at Dalheim
( Luxembourg), Marie-Anne Prommenschenkel-Po.orters,                    (') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice, OJ
residing in Luxembourg, and Josepha Wonner, residing in                     C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 .


title: Case T-116/00: Action brought on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-Möller against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.7.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-Möller
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
     Decision SG (2000) D/100623 of the Commission of
     22 December 1999 (1);                                                                         (Case T-116/00)
— order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the
     costs necessarily incurred by the latter.
                                                                                (2000/C 192/37)
Pleas in law and principal arguments
By the contested decision, the Commission categorised the
draft law amending the legislation on property rights, as                                    (Language of the case: French)
notified to it by the German Government, as aid compatible
with the EC Treaty. The draft modifies the programme for the
acquisition of land provided for by the German Ausgleichslei-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
stungsgesetz (Indemnification and Compensation Act), pursu-               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ant to which parcels of State-owned land in the new Federal               European Communities on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-
Länder are to be sold to various groups of purchasers at prices           Möller, residing at Igel (Federal Republic of Germany), rep-
lower than their market value.                                            resented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.
The applicant states that it represents several hundred former
owners who are not entitled to any restitution and whose                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
entitlement to assert their rights is subordinated, under the
Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, to that of other groups of pur-
chasers. The contested decision is of direct and individual
concern to the applicant and/or to its members.                           — annul the appointing authority’s decision dated 16 January
                                                                              2000 rejecting her complaint No 516/99 concerning the
                                                                              refusal to include her name on the list of officials proposed
The application is based, in particular, on the following pleas
                                                                              by the Official Publications Office for promotion to
in law:
                                                                              grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure;
— The decision in issue does not comply with the obligation,
     imposed by Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of
     reasons.                                                             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision promot-
                                                                              ing officials of the Official Publications Office to grade B2
     The reasons given by the Commission by way of justifi-                   in the 1999 promotions procedure;
     cation for its finding that the discrimination on grounds of
     nationality to which it had itself objected in its Decision
     C (1999) 42 of 20 January 1999 (2) is eliminated by                  — take note of the fact that she reserves the right in due
     the draft law are not in themselves conclusive. The                      course to claim compensation for the material and non-
     Commission’s main assertion, to the effect that that                     material loss suffered by her.
     discrimination has been eliminated by the deletion of the
     rules relating to the reference date, is not sufficiently borne
     out.
— The decision infringes the EC Treaty. The Commission has                Pleas in law and main arguments
     not taken full account of the scope of the prohibition of
     discrimination on grounds of nationality.
     Contrary to the view expressed by the Commission,                    The applicant contests the refusal by the appointing authority
     Paragraph 3a of the Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, in the                to include her name on the list of officials proposed for
     amended version thereof, is not in conformity with                   promotion to grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
     Community law. A supplementary purchase price claim
     cannot be regarded as equivalent to a claim for restitution
     of aid. On the contrary, Community law required that all
     the parcels of land released in consequence of the invalidity        In support of her claims, he pleads infringement of
     of the allocation decisions adopted in contravention of the          Articles 5(3), 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations. She considers
     implementation prohibition provided for in the third                 in that regard that the appointing authority has committed a
     sentence of Article 88(3) EC should be re-allocated in their         manifest error of assessment and has acted in a manner
     entirety.                                                            contrary to the interests of the service.
(1) OJ C 46 of 19.2.2000, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 107 of 24.4.1999, p. 21.


title: Case T-372/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (MÄNNERSPIELPLATZ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MÄNNERSPIELPLATZ — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (MÄNNERSPIELPLATZ)
   (Case T-372/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MÄNNERSPIELPLATZ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Pfefferkorn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 1796/2015-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between mydays and Mr Bammer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alexander Bammer to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-437/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/48

         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission
   (Case T-437/08)
   (2008/C 313/87)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide) (represented by: R. Wirtz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that decision SG.E3/MM/psi D(2008) 6658 of the Commission of 8 August 2008 is void pursuant to Article 231(1) EC;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant's necessary costs under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, which brings actions for compensation of undertakings injured by the European hydrogen peroxide cartel, challenges the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2008, by which its application on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for full access to the statement of contents of the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate was refused.
   In support of its claims the applicant complains of the infringement of the first and third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the exceptions contained in those provisions were misinterpreted or misapplied.
   The applicant relies on four pleas in law in that regard.
   First, the decision infringes the principle of strict interpretation and application of the exception. The Commission has not demonstrated any actual foreseeable and not merely hypothetical risk of detriment to the interests protected.
   Secondly, the contested decision is inconsistent with the principles of law of effective compensation for infringements of EC competition law, as the interest of the injured parties in the details of the infringement is to be valued more highly than the interest of the undertakings in not disclosing to the public the details of the infringement alleged by the Commission and the scope of its cooperation with the Commission within the framework of the leniency notice.
   Thirdly, the contested decision is not justified by the exception in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the protection of commercial interests.
   Fourthly, the contested decision is not justified by the exception in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2004 in Case T-37/04 R Região autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union (Proceedings for interim relief — Fisheries — Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 — Application for partial suspension and other interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency — Intervention)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/24

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 July 2004
   in Case T-37/04 R Região autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union
   (Proceedings for interim relief - Fisheries - Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Application for partial suspension and other interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency - Intervention)
   (2005/C 19/53)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-37/04 R, Região autónoma dos Açores, represented by M. Renouf, S. Crosby and C. Bryant, solicitors, and H. Mercer, barrister, against Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón), supported by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and E. Braquehais Conesa, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for partial suspension of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1), in so far as it adversely affects Azorean waters and, in particular, Articles 3, 5(1), 11, 13(b) and 15 thereof and the Annex thereto, and/or any other interim measures deemed to be appropriate – the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 7 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               Porto de Abrigo, Organização de Produtores da Pesca CRL and GÊ-Questa, Associação de Defesa do Ambiente are granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the applicant;

               (2)

               The application of WWF–World Wide Fund for Nature and Seas at Risk for leave to intervene is dismissed;

               (3)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               (4)

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-383/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Article 1(1) to (3) — Novel foods and novel food ingredients)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg
   (Case C-383/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(1) to (3) - Novel foods and novel food ingredients)
   (2009/C 55/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Stadt Regensburg

      Joined party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(d) and (e) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1) — Novel character of a food marketed in a limited geographical area of the Community (San Marino) shortly before the entry into force of the regulation when the food is manufactured from ingredients the habitual human consumption of which is disputed or can be established only by reference to a non-member country (Japan) — Obligation to subject a food to a control
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Importation of a food product into San Marino before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients is not a relevant factor for assessing whether that product meets the requirement relating to human consumption to a significant degree within the European Community within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation.

               2.

               The fact that all the individual ingredients of a food product meet the requirement laid down in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 258/97, or have a safe history, cannot be regarded as sufficient for that regulation not to apply to the food product concerned. In order to decide whether that food product should be classified as a novel food within the meaning of Regulation No 258/97, the competent national authority must proceed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the characteristics of the food product and of the production process.

               3.

               The fact that all of the algae contained in a food product within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation No 258/97 meet the requirement relating to human consumption to a significant degree within the European Community, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is not sufficient for that regulation not to apply to that product.

               4.

               Experience regarding the safety of a food product existing exclusively outside Europe is not sufficient to establish that the product concerned falls within the category of food products ‘having a history of safe food use’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation No 258/97.

               5.

               It is not incumbent upon an undertaking to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 13 of Regulation No 258/97.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) 8 January 2004 in Case C-69/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. coop. arl v Ministero delle Finanze,

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/16

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   8 January 2004
   in Case C-69/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. coop. arl v Ministero delle Finanze, (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Regulations (EEC) Nos 1079/77 and 1822/77 - Co-responsibility levy on cows' milk - Concept of ‘delivery to a purchaser’)
   (2004/C 94/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-69/03: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Corte d'Appello di Venezia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. coop. arl and Ministero delle Finanze, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 of 17 May 1977 on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products (OJ 1977 L 131, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1822/77 of 5 August 1977 laying down detailed rules for the collection of the co-responsibility levy introduced in respect of milk and milk products (OJ 1977 L 203, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Second Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 8 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Council Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 of 17 May 1977 on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1822/77 of 5 August 1977 laying down detailed rules for the collection of the co-responsibility levy introduced in respect of milk and milk products apply to all deliveries of cows' milk made by a producer to another person, regardless of the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of which the deliveries are made.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case T-316/00: Action brought on 9 October 2000 by Viking-Umwelttechnik Ges.m.b.H. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)

text:
C 372/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     misuse of powers by the defendant.
—     annul the decision adopted on 13 December 1999 by the
      Commission’s Pensions Unit, in accordance with the
      earlier requests of 23 August 1999, 22 September 1999
      and 3 December 1999;
—     review of the applicant’s file, in view of the transfer of her     Action brought on 9 October 2000 by Viking-
      pension rights, by the Transfer of Pension Rights Section          Umwelttechnik Ges.m.b.H. against the Office for Harmon-
      of the Commission Pensions Unit following receipt of                isation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)
      the interest arising from enforcement of a judgment,
      transferred by the Spanish social security;                                                 (Case T-316/00)
—     order any calculation necessary in respect of the abov-                                     (2000/C 372/25)
      ementioned transfer;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      pursuant to the general implementing provisions (GIP)
      by paying interest at a rate of 3.5 % per annum, calculated        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      on the basis of the capital sum required to ensure the             Market (Trade marks and Designs) was brought before the
      number of years of pensionable service with which she is           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      to be credited under the Staff Regulations in respect of           9 October 2000 by Viking-Umwelttechnik Ges.m.b.H. Kuf-
      the periods to which such interest relates;                        stein (Austria), represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz
                                                                         Hootz Hirsch Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart (Germany).
—     order the repayment to the applicant of any amount                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      overpaid as a result of the difference between the
      transferable capital sum together with interest of all kinds       —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 28 July
      and the capital sum required to ensure payment together                  2000 in Case R 558/1999-1 relating to the application
      with interest payable to the Commission; and                             for registration as a Community trade mark No 459 149;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the applicant’s
                                                                               costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Mark:                          Colour mark claiming green (Pan-
The present action has been brought against the decision                                                tone 369c) and grey (Pantone
allegedly contained in a memorandum sent to the applicant                                               428u)         —      Application
dated 13 December 1999, adopted in the context of credit                                                No 459 149
for pensionable service reckoned pursuant to the general
provisions implementing Article 11(2) of the Staff Regulations,          Goods or services:             Goods in Class 7 (include garden
with regard to the years during which contributions had been                                            choppers, mowers, hedge cutters,
paid to the Spanish social security scheme, and, in particular,                                         rotary machines, ploughs,high
calculation of the interest arising from the amount overpaid                                            pressure cleaning apparatus)
on transferring pension rights.
                                                                         Decision         contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
                                                                         before the Board of
                                                                         Appeal:
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         Pleas in law:                  — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
—     infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the the                                                No 40/94
      Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communi-
      ties and its implementing provisions, so far as concerns                                          — misapplication of Article
      Article 77 et seq thereof.                                                                            7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 40/94
—     breach of the principles of subsidiarity, non-discrimi-
      nation and protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-553/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Undis Servizi Srl v Comune di Sulmona (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Award of the contract without initiating a tendering procedure — So-called ‘in-house’ award — Conditions — Similar control — Performance of the essential activity — Successful public capital tendering company owned by several local authorities — Activity also carried out for the benefit of local authorities which are not shareholders — Activity imposed by a public authority which is not a shareholder)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Undis Servizi Srl v Comune di Sulmona
   (Case C-553/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Award of the contract without initiating a tendering procedure - So-called ‘in-house’ award - Conditions - Similar control - Performance of the essential activity - Successful public capital tendering company owned by several local authorities - Activity also carried out for the benefit of local authorities which are not shareholders - Activity imposed by a public authority which is not a shareholder))
   (2017/C 038/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Undis Servizi Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Sulmona

      Other party to the proceedings: Cogesa SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In the context of the application of the Court’s case-law on direct awards of so-called ‘in-house’ public contracts, in order to determine whether the contractor carries out the essential part of its activity for the contracting authority, including local authorities which are its controlling shareholders, an activity imposed on that contractor by a non-shareholder public authority for the benefit of local authorities which are also not shareholders of that contractor and do not exercise any control over it must not be taken into account, since that activity must be regarded as being carried out for third parties.

               2.

               For the purpose of determining whether the contractor carries out the essential part of its activity for the shareholder local authorities which jointly exercise over it control similar to that which they exercise over their own departments, account must be taken of all the circumstances of the case, which may include activity carried out by that contractor for those local authorities before such joint control took effect.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-256/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez
   (Case C-256/09)
   2009/C 220/46
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Purrucker

      Defendant: Guillermo Vallés Pérez

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Article 21 et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) (the Brussels IIa Regulation) concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions of other Member States, in accordance with Article 2(4) of that regulation, also apply to enforceable provisional measures, within the meaning of Article 20 of that regulation, concerning the right to child custody?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.