title: Case T-238/09: Action brought on 23 June 2009 — Sniace v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/28

         Action brought on 23 June 2009 — Sniace v Commission
   (Case T-238/09)
   2009/C 193/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sniace (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F.J. Moncholí Fernández, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that this action for annulment has been lodged in accordance with the provisions of Article 230 EC and that it is well founded;

               —

               annul and declare inapplicable the provisions of Article 1(2) of the decision of 10 March 2009 which states that the following State aid implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace is incompatible with the common market: (i) the agreement concluded on 8 March 1996 between Sniace and the Social Security Treasury relating to debt rescheduling; (ii) the implementation of the agreement concluded on 5 November 1993 between Sniace and FOGASA and (iii) the agreement concluded on 31 October 1995 between Sniace and FOGASA;

               —

               annul and declare inapplicable the provisions of Articles 2(2) and 3(2)of the Decision of 10 March 2009 ordering Spain to:

                           (i)

                           recover from the beneficiary the aid granted plus the corresponding interest with immediate effect, and,

                           (ii)

                           inform the Commission with two months of the total amount, the measures adopted and anticipated in order to comply with the decision and documentary evidence to show that the recipient has been ordered to repay the aid;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested measure in this case is Commission Decision C(2009) 1479 final of 10 March 2009 relating to measure No C/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of the applicant (SNIACE), and amending Decision 1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998. That decision held that the aid granted by the Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA) and by the Social Security Treasury (TGSS) in favour of SNIACE to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, on the ground that the agreements for debt repayment concluded between SNIACE and FOGASA and the rescheduling agreement concluded between SNIACE and the TGSS did not comply with market conditions as regards the type of interest applicable. (1)

   The contested decision has declared the aid set out in paragraph 2 of the form of order incompatible with the common market.
   In support of its form of order, the applicant claims first that, when examining the agreements and concluding that neither FPGASA nor the TGSS acted in the same way as a private creditor would have done, the Commission incorrectly interpreted the applicable law. The applicant states in that respect that the defendant's position is based on a comparison of the position of the private creditor BANESTO with that of FOGASA, making a generalisation which consists in unjustifiably assuming that all private creditors would behave in the same way as BANESTO.
   In any event, the applicant states, in its capacity as a public creditor it conducted itself in manner almost identical to that of BANESTO.
   SNIACE also alleges the infringement of the duty to state reasons. It states in particular that the Commission fails to give any reasons for the ‘threatened distortion of competition’ which is the key for finding that aid is State aid.

      (1)  See Case C-342/96 Spain v Commission [1999] ECRI-2459, Case C-525/04 P Spain v Commission [2007] ECR I-9947, and Case T-36/99 Lentzig AG v Commission [2004] ECR II-3597.


title: Case T-49/10: Action brought on 5 February 2010 — The Footwear Co. Ltd v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/56

         Action brought on 5 February 2010 — The Footwear Co. Ltd v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)
   (Case T-49/10)
   2010/C 100/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: The Footwear Co. Ltd (Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: G. Griss and C. Loidl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Reno Schuhcentrum GmbH (Thaleischweiler-Fröschen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 December 2009 in Case R 1705/2008-4;

               —

               Reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Classes 25 and 28;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to grant registration of the mark applied for;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs, including those incurred in the opposition proceedings and before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The Footwear Co. Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘swiss cross FOOTWEAR’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28 (Registration No 4 686 549)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Reno Schuhcentrum GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘criss cross’ No 30 229 875 for goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the Community trade mark application

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

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-376/10: Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/63

      Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission
      (Case T-376/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/113)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Capelli, lawyer, M. Valcada, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Article 1 of European Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, notified (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it finds that Mamoli Robinetteria SpA had infringed Article 10 TFEU and, consequently, annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes on Mamoli Robinetteria SpA a fine amounting to 10 % of the total turnover for 2009, subsequently reduced to EUR 1 041 531 on account of Mamoli’s specific situation;

                  —

                  Annul Article 2 of European Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, notified (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), recalculating the fine and reducing it to an amount equal to 0.3 % of Mamoli Robinetteria’s turnover for 2003 or, in any event, to such lesser amount, compared with the penalty imposed, as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-364/10 Duravit and Others v Commission and Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.
      In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
      Infringement of the rights of the defence, of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the other parties to the proceedings were able to put forward arguments in their defence in relation to circumstances not disclosed to Mamoli. It is also argued that the statement of objections was also based on documents treated as confidential and not accessible to the parties for consultation.
      Breach of the principle of legality and infringement of Articles 101 to 105 TFEU, taken together, and Article 23 of Council Regulation No 1/2003. (1) In that connection, the applicant submits that, in the absence of an act of the European legislature, the Commission does not have any power to grant partial or total immunity to undertakings or, on the basis of such a statement of objections, to initiate competition proceedings resulting in the imposition of heavy penalties.
      Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation EC No 1/2003.
      In that connection, the applicant submits that the Commission made substantial errors during the investigation, disregarding the specific nature of the Italian market (for example, structure, characteristics, roll of wholesalers) and conflating the situation of the Italian market with that of the German market. That error undermined the Commission’s conclusions as to the existence of a price-fixing cartel on the Italian market. In addition, as a result of the errors alleged, the Commission did not discharge the burden of proof incumbent on it.
      As regards the amount of the fine, the applicant submits that the Commission did not correctly evaluate the applicant’s actual conduct or the impact of that conduct in the context of the contested infringement, since it failed to take due account of the critical economic situation in which the applicant found itself.
      The applicant submits that, although the Commission understood that Mamoli was in fact in a critical economic situation undermining the company’s ability to pay, it adopted a decision unsuitable for attaining the objective sought.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA v Commission of the European Communities and Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) (Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Somatosalm — Procedure for setting maximum residue limits — Adaptation Committee — Failure to deliver opinion — Deadline for proposing measures to the Council)

text:
C 47/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 18 November 1999
                                                                                of 18 November 1999
in Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA v Commission of the
European Communities and Fédération Européenne de la                       in Case C-161/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     Santé Animale (Fedesa) (1)                            the Tribunal du Travail, Mons): Georges Platbrood v
                                                                                Office National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Somatosalm —
Procedure for setting maximum residue limits — Adaptation
Committee — Failure to deliver opinion — Deadline for                      (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as
               proposing measures to the Council)                          amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92) — Benefits of
                                                                           the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more
                                                                           Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or
                            (2000/C 47/09)                                 withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State
                                                                           — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance
                                                                           with a legal presumption (‘war years presumption’) where
                     (Language of the case: French)                        no pension right payable under another scheme (including a
                                                                                foreign scheme) is established for them)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2000/C 47/10)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA, established in Seraing, Belgium,
represented by A. Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                  (Language of the case: French)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17
February 1998 in Case T-105/96 Pharos v Commission[1998]                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ECR II-285, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                                 in the European Court Reports)
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: M. Nolin) and Fédération Européenne de
la Santé Animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels, Belgium,               In Case C-161/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
represented by D. Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt                Travail (Labour Court), Mons, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling
and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — the Court (Fifth                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Georges
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     Platbrood and Office National des Pensions (ONP) — on the
Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                 interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in which it:                     of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                           (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                           J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and
2. Orders Pharos SA to pay the costs;                                      M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
3. Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
    to pay its own costs and those of the Commission arising from
    its intervention.                                                      A national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings
                                                                           under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and
                                                                           31 December 1944, was in employment is deemed to have continued
                                                                           to be an employed person under the same conditions as regards
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                  duration throughout the period between the date on which his
                                                                           employment ceased and 31 December 1945, but under which that
                                                                           presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the
                                                                           person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State,
                                                                           does not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal


title: Case T-482/15: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/51

         Order of the General Court of 7 December 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission
   (Case T-482/15) (1)

   (2016/C 059/59)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case T-503/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Ruiz Sacristán and Arias Mosquera v Commission and SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/36

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Ruiz Sacristán and Arias Mosquera v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-503/17)
   (2017/C 347/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Jaime Ruiz Sacristán (Cuauhtémoc, Mexico), José María Arias Mosquera (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should annul the following measures:

               —

               Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A..

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, y T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-560/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2015 by LM against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2015 in Case F-109/14, LM v Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/32

         Appeal brought on 28 September 2015 by LM against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2015 in Case F-109/14, LM v Commission
   (Case T-560/15 P)
   (2015/C 414/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: LM (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested order.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2015 (Case F-109/14), which dismissed as manifestly unfounded an action seeking an order that the Commission pay the appellant, in respect of the survivor’s pension which she receives, 35 % of the retirement pension received by her former spouse at the time of his death.
   In support of her claims, the appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal did not examine her request to increase the pension in accordance with Article 25 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognise and respect the right of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 January 1997 in Case T-115/94: Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of the European Union (Withdrawal of tariff concessions - Agreement on the European Economic Area - Obligation under public international law not to deprive a treaty of its object and purpose before its entry into force - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty - Publication in the Official Journal)

text:
8 . 3 . 97            1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 74/ 19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 January 1997                                                   of 29 January 1997
                                                                            in Case T-7/94 : Hilde Adriaenssens and Others v.
in Case T-l 15/94: Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of the                        Commission of the European Communities ( l )
                        European Union O
                                                                      (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures — Pay
(Withdrawal of tariff concessions — Agreement on the                  slips applying the scales in respect of certain parental
European Economic Area — Obligation under public                      contributions fixed by a joint interinstitutional committee
international law not to deprive a treaty of its object                      — Admissibility — Time-limits — Time-barred)
and purpose before its entry into force — Principle of
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/41 )
protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal
         certainty — Publication in the Official Journal)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            ( 97/C 74/40 )
                                                                      In Case T-7/94 : Hilde Adriaenssens, Irma Both, Maria
                                                                      Luisa Cipriano, Raffaella Fraconfini, Christine Mitchell,
                                                                      Paloma Moreno-Doz, Jennifer Perry, Alexandros
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Athanassiadis, Francisco de Vicente and Philippe Tempe,
                                                                      officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
In Case T-l 15/94: Opel Austria GmbH, formerly General                an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51
Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is in                    rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the European
Vienna, Austria, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of                Communities ( Agents : initially, Joseph Griesmar and,
the Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,                subsequently, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Julian Currall )
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                     — application, first, for annulment of the implicit
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                   decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicants '
8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, supported by Republic of Austria              complaints seeking to have the scales applied in
( Agents: initially Irene Janisch, subsequently Beatrix               Luxembourg on the levying of the parental contributions
Matousek-Horak and Christian Kremer) v. Council of the                which they are required to pay as users of the nursery,
European Union, ( Agents : Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and Hans-              kindergarten and study centre services brought into line
Jiirgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ), supported by                    with those in force in Brussels, and, second, in so far as
Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents: John                those decisions are based on the decision of the Social
Forman, Eric White and Theofanis Christoforou ) —                     Activities Committee fixing those scales, for a declaration
application for anulment of Council Regulation ( EC )                 that that decision is illegal — the Court of First Instance
No 3697/93 of 20 December 1993 withdrawing tariff                     ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, and
concessions in accordance with Article 23 (2 ) and                    V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
Article 27 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the Free Trade Agreement between            Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January 1997, in
the Community and Austria ( General Motors Austria ) ( OJ             which it:
No L 343 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 1 ), — the Court of First
 Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                 1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January 1997, in               2 . orders the defendants to pay all the costs.
 which it :
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
 1 . annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 3697/93 of
       20 December 1993 withdrawing tariff concessions in
       accordance with Article 23 (2) and Article 27 (3) (a)
       of the Free Trade Agreement between the Community
       and Austria (General Motors Austria);                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 January 1997
                                                                       in Case T-297/94 : Joelle Vanderhaeghen v. Commission of
 2 . orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay the                              the European Communities ( l )
       applicant's costs;                                              (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures —
                                                                       Admissibility — Pay slips applying the scales in respect of
                                                                       certain parental contributions fixed by a joint inter
 3 . orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to              institutional committee — Principle of equality of
       bear their own costs .                                                                        treatment)
                                                                                97/C 74/42 )
 (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-297/94: Joelle Vanderhaeghen, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case T-493/10: Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Persia International Bank v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/54

         Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Persia International Bank v Council
   (Case T-493/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 2 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul paragraph 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

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

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. Furthermore, the applicant applies, in accordance with Article 277 TFUE, for the inapplicability of Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

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

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

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


title: Case C-135/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-135/13)
   2013/C 171/26
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Szatmári Malom Kft.

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Questions referred

               1.

               May a situation where a business operator, having closed down previous holdings, wishes to establish a new holding without increasing existing capacity be deemed to fall within the concept of improving overall performance of the agricultural holding under Article 26(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development?

               2.

               May the investment to be made by the applicant be interpreted as investment for the purpose of improving overall performance of the enterprise within the meaning of Articles 20(b)(iii) and 28(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (1)

               3.

               Is Paragraph 6(3) of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FVM) No 47/2008 of 17 April 2008 compatible with Article 28(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 in that, as regards mills, only support for operations for the purpose of modernising existing capacity is granted? Does the Regulation empower the national legislature to exclude certain types of development from support for economic reasons?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).


title: Case C-394/15 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by John Dalli against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 May 2015 in Case T-562/12: John Dalli v European Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/43

         Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by John Dalli against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 May 2015 in Case T-562/12: John Dalli v European Commission
   (Case C-394/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare his appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the contested judgment;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order compensation for damage of 1 symbolic euro for non-material damage and, on a provisional basis, of EUR 1 9 13  396 for material damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises:

               —

               a first plea in law, alleging that the General Court ruled ultra petita by changing the subject-matter of the dispute;

               —

               a second plea in law, alleging a failure to provide reasons;

               —

               a third plea in law, alleging a breach of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the Appellant, including his rights of defence;

               —

               a fourth plea in law, raising several distortions of facts and evidence; and

               —

               a fifth plea in law, challenging the interpretation or application of European Union law by the General Court.


title: Case C-366/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG (Harmonisation of laws — Directive 95/2/EC — Part A of Annex III — Directive 2001/113/EC — Second paragraph of Part II of Annex I — Extra jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative — Term low sugar jam )

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/23

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG
   (Case C-366/08) (1)

   (Harmonisation of laws - Directive 95/2/EC - Part A of Annex III - Directive 2001/113/EC - Second paragraph of Part II of Annex I - Extra jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative - Term ‘low sugar jam’)
   2009/C 267/39
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Defendant: Adolf Darbo AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (OJ 1995 L 61, p. 1) and the second paragraph of Part II of Annex I to Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 10, p. 67) — Ability to market, under the name ‘extra jam’, jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative — Term ‘low-sugar jam’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘low-sugar jams’ in Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, as amended by Directive 98/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 October 1998, covers jams described as ‘jam’ and ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content appreciably lower than the reference value of 60 %. Products described as ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content of 58 % cannot be considered to be low sugar within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-633/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — JT International v OHIM — Habanos (PUSH)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/70

         Action brought on 12 November 2015 — JT International v OHIM — Habanos (PUSH)
   (Case T-633/15)
   (2016/C 027/88)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JT International SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corporación Habanos, SA (La Habana, Cuba)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PUSH’ — Application for registration No 11 639 903

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 August 2015 in Case R 3046/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

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

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-518/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 Ecoceane v EMSA

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/29

         Action brought on 23 December 2009 Ecoceane v EMSA
   (Case T-518/09)
   2010/C 80/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecoceane (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Spalter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare Ecoceane’s action admissible;

               —

               Annul the contested decision of EMSA of 28 October 2009 rejecting Ecoceane’s tender;

               —

               Annul EMSA’s decision to award the contract (2009/S 42-060271) and the signature thereof;

               —

               Order EMSA to pay to Ecoceane, the applicant, the amount of EUR 224 774 by way of damages and interest;

               —

               Order EMSA to pay to Ecoceane, the applicant, the amount of EUR 25 000 by way of non-recoverable costs;

               —

               Order EMSA to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of 28 October 2009 by which EMSA rejected its tender at the end of a tendering procedure for the award of a public services contract relating to intervention by support vessels for combating oil pollution, and EMSA’s decision to award the contract and the signature thereof. The applicant also seeks damages for the losses occasioned by the contested decision.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its application.
   First, it submits that EMSA, in failing to provide the information requested by the applicant, namely the analysis report of the tenders containing the information relating to the running of the procedure, the grounds for the rejection of its tender, the scores obtained by the tenders using the percentages set out in the tender specifications, and also the features and advantages of the successful tenderer’s tender, infringed Article 100(2) of Financial Regulation No 1605/2002/EC (1) and Article 149(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002/EC (2), as the reasons given for the rejection decision do not comply with those provisions.
   The applicant submits, secondly, that the additional criteria imposed by EMSA in its tender specifications, with a view to examining and assessing the tenders, were not objective and justifiable, given the subject-matter of the contract; consequently, the choice of the additional criteria corresponding to a pre-identified technology does not ensure equal access to candidates offering an innovative method and infringes the Community principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency, referred to in Article 89(1) of Financial Regulation No 1605/2002/EC.
   The applicant submits, thirdly, that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency in dealing with the candidates, by refusing to visit the de-pollution vessel offered by Ecoceane, contrary to the treatment accorded the other candidates. The defendant also infringed those principles by failing to have Ecoceane heard by a committee for the evaluation of tenders, composed of at least three members present throughout the meeting, in accordance with Article 146 of Regulation No 2342/2002/EC.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that EMSA made manifest errors of assessment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1261/2005 of 20 July 2005 (OJ 2005 L 201, p. 3).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Case C-414/02: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul v Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (Community Customs Code — Article 202 — Accrual of the customs debt — Unlawful introduction into the Community customs territory — Meaning of ‘debtor’ of such a debt — Extension to the employer of liability for the debt of an employee who has committed irregularities in the performance of customs obligations)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 23 September 2004
   in Case C-414/02: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul v Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 202 - Accrual of the customs debt - Unlawful introduction into the Community customs territory - Meaning of ‘debtor’ of such a debt - Extension to the employer of liability for the debt of an employee who has committed irregularities in the performance of customs obligations)
   (2004/C 284/04)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-414/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 19 November 2002, in the proceedings between Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul and Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz (Act to implement customs law) which, in the event of unlawful introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods subject to import duties, makes the employer co-debtor of the customs debt of the employee who introduced those goods in the conduct of the employer's affairs, so long as such legislation requires that the employer took part in the introduction of the goods and knew or ought reasonably to have known that such introduction was unlawful.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-123/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/34

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)
   (Case T-123/14)
   2014/C 129/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turkey)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2013 given in Case R 314/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AquaPerfect’ for the goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 10 330 454

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 9 444 118 of the word mark ‘waterPerfect’ for goods in Class 7

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-195/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)
   (Case C-195/15)
   (2015/C 254/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)

                  Other parties:

               Gemeinde Wedemark,
               Hannoversche Volksbank eG

      Question referred

   Does the term ‘right in rem’ in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) include a national rule such as that contained in Paragraph 12 of the Grundsteuergesetz (Law on real property tax, ‘GrStG’) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 77(2) of the Abgabenordnung (Tax Code, ‘AO’), pursuant to which real property tax debts are by operation of law a public charge on real property and the property owner must accept enforcement against the property in that respect?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-418/03 (1)

   (2004/C 239/20)
   By order of 13 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-418/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-563/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Central Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to reputation — Proportionality)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Central Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-563/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Right to reputation - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 155/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran (Iran)) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Central Bank of Iran to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile di Genova by orders of that court of 19, 21 and 23 November 1996 in the cases before it between 1. Fiduciaria Internazionale Srl; 2. Giolfo e C. Srl; 3. Ligure Piemontese Società d'Intermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4. So.Me.Fi. Srl; 5. Saia Srl; 6. Svin Servizi Spa and Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Cases C-25/97 and C-30/97)

text:
8 . 3 . 97               EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 74/ 17
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the                             under Community law, a time-limit which starts to run
       costs of the proceedings.                                                before the correct and complete transposition into
                                                                                national law of the Directive conferring that right
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                             compatible with Community law ?
Infringement of the obligations under Articles 48 , 52 and                 2. Is it compatible with Community law to provide a
59 of the EC Treaty and under Article 4 of Council                              party whose rights are recognized as having been
Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 4 of Council Directive                         infringed, and to whom repayment of the sums
73/148/EEC : the starting point is the freedom of                               claimed is granted, with a remedial procedure under
movement of persons enshrined in Community law and                              which the rules as to quantum differ from, and
the principle of 'national treatment'. Infringements by                         compare unfavourably with, those laid down in
German nationals of paragraph 5 ( 1 ) No 1 and 2 of the                         respect of actions for repayment between private
PersonalausweisG are comparable to infringements by                             individuals, and are substantially determined by a
non-German Community nationals of paragraph 12a ( 1 )                           measure enacted by the same State as that which
No 2 of the AufenthG/EWG. This comparableness is                                infringed the injured party's rights by failing to fulfil
substantiated not only by the fact that Article 9 ( 1 ) of                      its obligations ?
Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 7 of Directive 73/ 148/EEC
expressly refer to identity cards for nationals . Since the lack
of a valid identity card, passport or other papers listed in
paragraph 12a ( 2 ) of the AufenthG/EWG does not remove
the right of residence resulting from Community law, in each
case, both that of a non-German Community national and                     Action brought on 31 January 1997 by the European
that of a German national, the obligation to prove one's                      Parliament against the Council of the European Union
identity also concerns an, in principle, equivalent
administrative rule with — in the case of a non-German                                            ( Case C-42/97)
Community national — purely declaratory effect in regard to                                         ( 97/C 74/35 )
the Community-law residence permit.
Consequently, neither a different standard of fault nor a                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
different scale of fines is permissible .                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 31 January 1997 by the European
                                                                           Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Norbert
( : ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485 .                       Lorenz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 172 , 28 . 6 . 1973 , p. 14.
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Registry of the General Secretariat of
                                                                           the European Parliament, Tower Building.
                                                                           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                 — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the
di Genova by orders of that court of 19, 21 and 23                              Council 's decision of 21 November 1996 on the
November 1996 in the cases before it between 1 . Fiducia                       adoption of a multiannual programme to promote the
ria Internazionale Srl; 2 . Giolfo e C. Srl; 3 . Ligure Piemon                 linguistic diversity of the Community in the
tese Società d'Intermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4. So.Me.Fi.                      information society ( MLIS ),
Srl; 5 . Saia Srl; 6. Svin Servizi Spa and Amministrazione
                      delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                   ( Cases C-25/97 and C-30/97 )
                              ( 97/C 74/34 )                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     The aim of the contested act, and the principal and
European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di Ge                     definitive subject of its contents, is the promotion of
nova ( Genoa District Court) Sezione Prima Civile ( First                  linguistic diversity. The Community languages represent,
Civil Division ) of 19, 21 and 23 November 1996 , which                    in their diversity and richness, a cultural asset of the
were received at the Court Registry on 22 January 1997,                    greatest value . By means of the MLIS programme, the
for a preliminary ruling in the cases before it between 1 .                citizens of the Community will be able to improve their
Fiduciaria Internazionale Sri; 2. Giolfo e C. Sri; 3 . Ligure              knowledge of the cultures of the other Member States,
Piemontese Societa d'lntermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4 .                    which is an objective expressly envisaged by the first
So.Me.Fi . Sri; 5 . Saia Sri; 6 . Svin Servizi SpA and Ammini             indent of Article 128 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty. The contested
strazione delle Finanze dello Stato on the following                       act cannot therefore be adopted solely on the basis of
questions:                                                                 Article 130 of the Treaty, without also being based on
                                                                           Article 128 .
1 . Is national legislation which sets, in respect of the
       initiation of proceedings to safeguard a right arising


title: Case C-175/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Ralph Prankl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for products subject to excise duty — Imposition of duty on smuggled goods — Goods released for consumption in one Member State and transported to another Member State — Determination of the competent Member State — Right of the transit State to impose duty on those goods)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/21

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Ralph Prankl
   (Case C-175/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/12/EEC - General arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Imposition of duty on smuggled goods - Goods released for consumption in one Member State and transported to another Member State - Determination of the competent Member State - Right of the transit State to impose duty on those goods))
   (2015/C 138/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Party to the main proceedings

   Ralph Prankl

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods subject to excise duty that have been smuggled into the territory of a Member State are transported, without the accompanying document prescribed in Article 7(4) of that directive, to another Member State, in the territory of which those goods are discovered by the competent authorities, the transit Member States are not permitted also to levy excise duty on the driver of the heavy goods vehicle who transported them for having held those goods for commercial purposes in their territory.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-449/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Cementir Italia Srl against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2010 by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-63/08 Cementir Italia Srl v European Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/20

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Cementir Italia Srl against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2010 by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-63/08 Cementir Italia Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-449/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Cementir Italia Srl (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Barone and A. Marega, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal (1) and the decision (2) in so far as they find that the contested measure is not indemnifying and compensatory in nature and instead take the view that that measure constitutes unlawful and incompatible State aid; and/or

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds that the order for recovery contained in the decision is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, accordingly, set aside the decision in so far as it orders Italy to proceed immediately to recover the aid plus interest; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is defective and must therefore be set aside for the following reasons:

               1.

               Breach of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inconsistent reasoning and manifest error by reason of the distortion of the evidence submitted with regard to the interpretation of the contested measure as State aid and not as a compensatory measure in favour of the appellant. The General Court erred in interpreting restrictively the rules and national case-law which were invoked by the appellant at first instance and which indicate that the contested measure does not constitute State aid but has retained the compensatory purpose originally intended by the Italian legislature in 1962 and recognised by the Commission and by the General Court.

               2.

               Breach of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) and inconsistent and inadequate reasoning in that the General Court concluded that the order for recovery contained in the decision is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court’s judgment is defective and inadequately reasoned inasmuch as it held that the prolonged silence on the Commission’s part with regard to the points of clarification provided by the Italian authorities at the end of 1991 concerning the fact that the first prolongation of the Terni tariff retained the original compensatory function did not constitute a circumstance which was such as to create legitimate grounds for the appellant to believe that the prolongations of the Terni tariff, including the contested measure, did not amount to State aid.

      (1)  Judgment of 1 July 2010 of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-63/08.

      (2)  Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [Article 88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-595/15: Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/62

         Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission
   (Case T-595/15)
   (2016/C 027/79)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. (Much, Germany) and Horst Giesen (Much) (represented by: P. Brockmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision not to take action of 17 August 2015, notified on 24 August 2015,
               on the creation of a European law on associations in the form of a no longer published draft law or of a version of that draft law amended under the authorised framework, which gives equal treatment to cross-border activities for altruistic aims and profit-making associations, in the alternative,
               on the harmonisation of the national laws concerning associations and bodies with cross-border activities for altruistic aims;

               —

               thereby placing the European Commission in a situation whereby it is legally compliant for the purposes of Article 266 TFEU by ordering it to refrain from continuing to prevent or hinder the establishment of the detrimental situation described in the two preceding paragraphs and

               —

               order the Commission and any potential interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants challenge the decision to abandon the creation of a European law on associations and to address the current discrimination and interference with the collective and individual freedom of association.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), general principles of law within the meaning of Article 6(3) of TEU and Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Fundamental Rights

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the right to equality before the law (Article 20 of the Charter and Article 14 of the ECHR) to the detriment of altruistic values and associations with altruistic aims

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons in Article 41 of the Charter

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: limitation of the scope of fundamental rights by failing to act, an unlawful interpretation of the law, under Articles 52 and 54 of the Charter


title: Case T-401/09: Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/30

         Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-401/09)
   2009/C 297/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, however framed, which constituted rejection by the defendant of the request of 24 May 2009 submitted by the applicant to the defendant;

               —

               annul the note dated 15 June 2009 from the Registry of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00 (ten thousand Euro), or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may consider just and fair, by way of compensation for the damage suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs, disbursements and fees incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the defendant’s refusal to accede to the request for compensation for the alleged damage arising from the fact that a lawyer who was no longer authorised to receive it was notified of the Commission’s appeal against a decision of the Civil Service Tribunal granting in part the form of order sought by the applicant.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges a total failure to state reasons, breach of the duty of sound administration, infringement of provisions of law and a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-510/08: Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Toqueville v OHIM — Schiesaro (TOCQUEVILLE 13)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/35

         Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Toqueville v OHIM — Schiesaro (TOCQUEVILLE 13)
   (Case T-510/08)
   (2009/C 19/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Toqueville Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Bariatti, I. Palombella and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marco Schiesaro (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2008 in Case R 829/2008-2 Toqueville Srl v M. Schiesaro.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘TOCQUEVILLE 13’ (Community trade mark No 1.406.982) to designate goods and services in Classes 25, 41 and 42.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Marco Schiesaro.

      Decision challenged before the Board of Appeal: the decision of the Cancellation Division to grant the application for partial revocation of the trade mark in question.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: declaration that the appeal is inadmissible and rejection of a request for restitutio in integrum as regards the time-limit for filing an appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 73 and 78 if Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, Articles 2 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market and Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-630/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/21

         Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-630/15)
   (2016/C 059/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (København, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the aid measures granted to Femern A/S for the Fixed Link are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project was of common European interest and in finding that the aid was necessary and proportionate. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test and regarding the mobilisation of the State guarantees.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicants allege that there are evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure. In addition, they allege an insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections, regarding the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, regarding the necessity and proportionality of the aid and finally regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the Danish rail hinterland connections, in relation to the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, in relation to the necessity and proportionality of the aid and finally in relation to the undue distortions of competition and balancing test.


title: Case T-403/10: Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar (BRIGHTON)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/31

         Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar (BRIGHTON)
   (Case T-403/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (City of Industry, USA) (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felmar (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2010 in case R 408/2009-4;

               —

               Annul all costs orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BRIGHTON’, for goods in class 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Non-registered word and figurative trade marks ‘BRIGHTON’ and ‘Brighton’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and Italy in respect of belts; well-known word and figurative trade marks ‘BRIGHTON’ and ‘Brighton’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and Italy in respect of leather goods, hats, jewellery and watches

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in law, in finding that the earlier rights on which the opposition was based not to have been substantiated; infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-157/99: Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 281/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee of 23 Feb-
                                                                            ruary 1999 that the Commission submitted the final report
— set aside the contested decision;                                         on the inspection visit to Kazakhstan, and moreover it
                                                                            does not appear from the minutes that the Commission
— order the defendant to pay the applicant DEM                              submitted to the Standing Veterinary Committee the
    9 519 974 .00, with interest at 8 % per annum from the                  specific proposal for the contested decision.
    date when the present action was brought;
— declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the              The liquidated claim for damages essentially concerns an
    applicant for all further damage which may arise;                  advance payment for a delivery of 9 500 kg of caviar which is
                                                                       likely to be irrecoverable, and the loss of profit which could
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       have been earned on the processing and sale of that quantity.
                                                                       The final amount of damage cannot yet be completely
                                                                       calculated, however, and so the Community must be held to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        be liable in principle.
The applicant imports caviar mainly from Kazakhstan in large
units (as a rule 1.8 kg tins), packages it in small portions           (1) Commission Decision of 26 March 1999 amending Decision
and sells these on to its customers inside and outside the                 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the
Community.                                                                 import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption
                                                                           (OJ No L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 37).
                                                                       (2) Commission Decision of 28 January 1999 amending Decision
In accordance with Article 1 of in conjunction with the Annex              97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the
to the contested Commission decision (1), Kazakhstan was                   import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption
deleted from the list of third countries from which fishery                (OJ No L 44 of 18.2.1999, p. 61).
products may be imported into the Community, so that                   (3) Council Decision of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing
the previously authorised import of caviar was no longer                   up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country
permitted.                                                                 establishments from which Member States are authorised to
                                                                           import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live
                                                                           bivalve mulluscs (OJ No L 243 of 11.10.1995, p. 17).
In the period November/December 1998 three veterinary
inspectors instructed by the Commission carried out an
investigative mission for examining conditions in Kazakhstan
with respect to imports of horsemeat and of fist products
other than caviar. Although caviar was not even a subject
of investigation, the inspectors nevertheless proposed that
Kazakhstan should be deleted from the list of authorised
countries of import with respect also to imports of caviar. In
the fourth recital in the preamble to the contested decision the
Commission then indeed gave as reasons for the deletion of
Kazakhstan the serious deficiencies found during the inspec-           Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against
tion visit.                                                                          the Council of the European Union
As a result of the contested decision, it was no longer possible                                (Case T-157/99)
for the applicant to import into the Community the fresh
caviar for which it had concluded a supply contract shortly
before the adoption of the contested decision, and it has                                       (1999/C 281/36)
thereby incurred substantial damage.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes
— the principle of sound administration, because it incor-             An action against the Council of the European Union was
    rectly assesses the facts on which it is based and draws           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    implausible conclusions from them, and                             Communities on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
— the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations,          Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
    since the Commission, after the inspection visit to Kazakh-        the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
    stan by the veterinary inspectors, in Decision 99/136/EC (2)
    still left Kazakhstan on the list of authorised countries of
    import for caviar and then by the contested decision
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    suddenly and without warning deleted Kazakhstan from
    the list, and also breaches
                                                                       — annul the defendant’s decision not to promote her to grade
— essential procedural requirements, since — in breach of                   C 4 in the 1998 promotions procedure;
    Decision 95/408/EC (3) on which the contested decision is
    based — it does not appear from the minutes of the                 — order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — declare that the applicant has been suffering from total
                                                                             permanent invalidity, making it impossible for him to
                                                                             carry out the duties corresponding to a post in his career
The applicant entered the service of the General Secretariat of              bracket, from 23 September 1998, the date of his request
the Council as a grade C 5 official on 1 November 1995.                      that he be treated as suffering from invalidity, or such
During the 1998 promotions procedure, the list of officials                  other date as the Court may determine;
eligible for promotion and the number of posts to be filled by
way of promotion were published by Staff Notice No 140/98                — order that an expert medical opinion be sought in order to
on 5 November 1998. Amongst the 124 officials eligible for                   determine whether the applicant is suffering from total
promotion from grade C 5, the applicant was in 43rd place in                 invalidity;
order of seniority, out of all the grade C 5 officials having
the requisite seniority under the Staff Regulations. Upon                — make such ruling as to costs as may be appropriate.
completion of the work of the advisory committee on category
C promotions, a list of officials proposed for promotion to
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
grade C 4, containing 38 names was sent to the appointing
authority, which decided to act on it. The applicant’s name did
not appear on that list.                                                 By note dated 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted a
                                                                         request for the grant to him of an invalidity pension. In
                                                                         consequence of that request, the administration of the Court
In support of her application, the applicant pleads:                     of Auditors referred the matter to the Invalidity Committee,
                                                                         which concluded that the applicant was not suffering from
— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and                any complaint which could be regarded as total permanent
     failure to provide statement of reasons;                            invalidity making it impossible for his to perform his duties.
                                                                         The appointing authority of the Court of Auditors, noting that
— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                   decision, rejected his request that he be retired on grounds of
— failure properly to carry out the promotions procedure;                invalidity.
— failure to observe the principle of equal treatment; and               In support of his application, the applicant maintains:
— manifest error of assessment.                                          — that his current state of health shows that the sick leave
                                                                             proposed by the Invalidity Committee has not brought
                                                                             about an improvement in his health;
                                                                         — that the various medical certificates obtained from several
                                                                             specialists show that the treatment received at the Mondorf
                                                                             health spa has had no palpable result, that no significant
                                                                             improvement is to be expected in the applicant’s physical
                                                                             condition and moreover, that, from an osteoarticular and
                                                                             spinal standpoint, the applicant needs beyond all doubt to
Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen                         be retired from his duties on grounds of invalidity;
                 against the Court of Auditors
                                                                         — that the decision of the Invalidity Committee should be
                                                                             reviewed, having regard to a new medical certificate dated
                         (Case T-159/99)                                     10 May 1999 concluding that the treatment has not
                                                                             improved the applicant’s muscular condition.
                         (1999/C 281/37)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before               Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 and Others against the Council of the European Union
7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen, residing at Nittel (Ger-
many), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar,                                       (Case T-160/99)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
51 Rue Albert 1er.                                                                               (1999/C 281/38)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
— find that new factors have arisen since the Invalidity
     Committee adopted its decision on 30 October 1998;                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that the action brought by the applicant against               Communities on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson, Monica
     the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 7 April           Hägg and Lena Hellsten, residing in Brussels, represented by
     1999, by which it rejected the complaint lodged against             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar (Belgium), with an address
     the decision adopted by the appointing authority of the             for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de
     Court of Auditors on 26 November 1998, is well founded;             Cessange.


title: Case C-535/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2015 — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2015 — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle
   (Case C-535/15)
   (2016/C 007/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

      Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

      Intervening party: The representative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Question referred

   Is Article 5 of the REACH Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, subject to Articles 6, 7, 21 and 23 of the REACH Regulation, substances may not be exported out of the European Union unless they have been registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of Title II of the REACH Regulation where this is required?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/830 of 28 May 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 8).


title: Case C-437/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho (Portugal) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho (Portugal) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA
   (Case C-437/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Manuel Afonso Esteves

      Defendant: Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA

      Question referred

   In a motor-vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has caused personal injury and material loss to one of the drivers (the injured party claiming compensation), is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Civil Code) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured party for the material and non-material loss resulting from the personal injuries suffered (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

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

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

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


title: Case C-459/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid for a training project concerning certain jobs in the new DHL centre at Leipzig-Halle airport — Action for annulment against the decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market — Examination of the need for the aid — Failure to take into account the incentive effects of the aid and its positive external effects on the choice of the site)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission
   (Case C-459/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid for a training project concerning certain jobs in the new DHL centre at Leipzig-Halle airport - Action for annulment against the decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market - Examination of the need for the aid - Failure to take into account the incentive effects of the aid and its positive external effects on the choice of the site)
   2011/C 269/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt (represented by: A. Rosenfeld, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action seeking partial annulment of Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 regarding the State aid which Germany intends to grant to DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31) — Aid for training — Decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market — Incorrect examination of the need for the aid — Disregard of the positive external effects of the aid and of its incentive effects on the choice of the site

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismissses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.