title: Case C-382/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Chapter 73 — Steel strands, ropes and cables — Heading 7312 — TARIC code — Error in the tariff classification — Release of goods for free circulation — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Anti-dumping duties — Fine of an amount equal to the total anti-dumping duties)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-382/09) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 73 - Steel strands, ropes and cables - Heading 7312 - TARIC code - Error in the tariff classification - Release of goods for free circulation - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Anti-dumping duties - Fine of an amount equal to the total anti-dumping duties)
   2010/C 328/12
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stils Met SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senats — Interpretation of Chapter 73 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Stranded wire, ropes and cables, of steel, not coated or only plated or coated with zinc, whatever their chemical composition, in particular of alloy steel, not consigned from Moldova or Morocco — Classification under headings 7312108219, 7312108419 and 7312108619 of the Combined Nomenclature in 2004 and 2005 — National legislation providing for a penalty in a sum equal to that of the antidumping duty

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Integrated Tariff of the European Communities established by Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version applying in 2004 and 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that ropes and cables of steel, other than stainless steel, not coated or only plated or coated with zinc, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm but not exceeding 48 mm, not consigned either from Moldova or from Morocco, fall within TARIC codes 7312108219, 7312108419 or 7312108619, depending on their cross-sectional dimension;

               2.

               Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the imposition, in the event of an error in the tariff classification of goods imported into the customs territory of the European Union, of a fine equal to the total amount of the anti-dumping duties applicable to those goods, provided that the conditions in accordance with which the amount of the fine is to be set are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case C-78/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2008 — Amministrazione delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paint Graphos Scarl

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2008 — Amministrazione delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paint Graphos Scarl
   (Case C-78/08)
   (2008/C 116/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   The Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Amministrazione delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Respondent: Paint Graphos Scarl
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the tax relief measures for cooperative societies, pursuant to Articles 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Presidential Decree No 601 of 1973, compatible with the rules on competition and, in particular, are they classifiable as state aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC, especially given that the system of monitoring and for the prevention of abuse provided for under Legislative Decree No 1577 of 1947 is inadequate?

               2.

               In particular, for the purposes of determining whether the tax relief measures at issue are classifiable as state aid, can those measures be regarded as proportionate in relation to the objectives of cooperative undertakings; can the decision on proportionality take into consideration not only the individual measure but also the advantage conferred by the measures as a whole, with the resulting distortion of competition?

               3.

               For the purposes of the answer to the preceding questions, taking account of the fact that the system of monitoring has been seriously and further undermined by the reform of company law, above all in relation to cooperatives that are predominantly rather than fully mutual, under Law No 311 of 2004, and regardless of whether the tax relief measures in question can be classified as state aid, can the use of the legal form of a cooperative society, even in cases not involving fraud or deception, be regarded as an abuse of law, where that form is used solely or predominantly in order to achieve a tax saving?


title: Case T-307/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Capella v OHIM — Oribay Mirror Buttons (ORIBAY) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark ORIBAY ORIginal Buttons for Automotive Yndustry — Admissibility of the application for revocation)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Capella v OHIM — Oribay Mirror Buttons (ORIBAY)
   (Case T-307/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark ORIBAY ORIginal Buttons for Automotive Yndustry - Admissibility of the application for revocation))
   (2015/C 034/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented: initially by M. Holtorf, subsequently by A. Theis, and lastly by F. Henkel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by G. Schneider, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: A. Velázquez Ibañez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2013 (Case R 164/2012-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Capella EOOD and Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2013 (Case R 164/2012-4);

               2)

               Declares that OHIM is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Capella EOOD;

               3)

               Declares that Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-62/12: Order of the General Court of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access — Inadmissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU — Confirmatory measure)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/35

         Order of the General Court of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council
   (Case T-62/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission - Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access - Inadmissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU - Confirmatory measure)
   2012/C 366/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Council’s decision of 1 December 2011 confirming the decision to refuse the applicant full access to an opinion issued by the legal service of the Council (Document No 6865/09) concerning a draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.

               3.

               ClientEarth is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-286/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich by order of that Court of 27 May 2003 in the case of Silvia Hosse against Land Salzburg

text:
20.9.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 226/5
Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of                          application of social security schemes to employed per-
         the European Communities against Ireland                            sons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                             families moving within the Community (1), as amended by
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (2) in conjunction with
                        (Case C-257/03)                                      Annex II, Section III, is care allowance under the
                                                                             Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz (Law on Care Allowance of
                        (2003/C 226/06)                                      the Land Salzburg) awarded to a member of the family of
                                                                             a person employed in the Land Salzburg who lives with his
                                                                             family in the Federal Republic of Germany excluded from
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                    the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as a special
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by                       non-contributory benefit?
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.                                                          2.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                                                                             May the family member of a person employed in the Land
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Salzburg who lives with his family in the Federal Republic
                                                                             of Germany claim that care allowance under the
1)   Declare that by failing to transmit to the Commission data              Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz be paid in the form of a
     concerning CO2 emissions from new passenger cars in                     sickness benefit in cash in accordance with Article 19 and
     accordance with Article 4(4) of Decision No 1753/2000/                  the corresponding provisions of the other sections of
     EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                     Chapter 1 of Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
     22 June 2000 establishing a scheme to monitor the aver-                 irrespective of the fact that he is principally resident in the
     age specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars (1),              Federal Republic of Germany, if he satisfies the other
     Ireland has failed to fulfil fully its obligations under                conditions for receipt of the benefit?
     Article 4(4) of that Decision.
2)   Order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    3.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                             Can a benefit such as care allowance under the Salzburger
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Pflegegeldgesetz awarded in the form of a social advantage
                                                                             within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC)
Article 4(4) of the Decision clearly provides that the first trans-          No 1612/68 (3) of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
mission of information shall take place no later than 1 July                 freedom of movement for workers within the Community
2001. Ireland has failed to comply with that deadline.                       be made subject to the condition that the recipient of the
                                                                             benefit must be principally resident in the Land Salzburg?
                                                                        4.   If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:
(1) OJ L 202, 10.8.2000, p. 1.
                                                                             Is the fact that citizens of the Union who are employed as
                                                                             frontier workers in the Land Salzburg but are principally
                                                                             resident in another Member State are not entitled to claim
                                                                             a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, such as care allowance
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                           under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz, compatible with
Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich by order of that                         Community law, in particular with the principles of non-
Court of 27 May 2003 in the case of Silvia Hosse against                     discrimination and citizenship of the Union under
                          Land Salzburg                                      Articles 12 and 17 EC respectively?
                        (Case C-286/03)
                                                                             If it is not: Does citizenship of the Union make it possible
                        (2003/C 226/07)                                      also for dependent family members of such a frontier
                                                                             worker who are likewise principally resident in another
                                                                             Member State to obtain in their own right care allowance
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz in the Land
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                    Salzburg?
(Supreme Court) der Republik Österreich of 27 May 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Silvia Hosse against Land Salzburg on the
following questions:
                                                                        (1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II), p. 416.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 136, 1992, p. 1.
1.   On a proper construction of Article 4(2b) of Regulation            (3) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II), p. 475.
     (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the


title: Case C-460/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 October 2014  — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 October 2014 — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
   (Case C-460/14)
   (2014/C 448/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Johannes Evert Antonius Massar

      Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the term ‘inquiry’ in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC (1) of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance be interpreted as covering the procedure before the UWV [Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (Employee Insurance Agency)], in which the employer requests a dismissal permit in order to bring to an end the employment contract with the employee (who is covered by legal expenses insurance)?

               2)

               If the answer to Question 1 depends on the characteristics of the specific procedure, in combination, if necessary, with the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of which characteristics, facts and circumstances must the national court then determine whether that procedure is to be regarded as constituting an inquiry within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.


title: Case F-76/12: Action brought on 20 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/41

         Action brought on 20 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-76/12)
   2012/C 287/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission converting merit points acquired in another institution and of the Administrative Notice publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 concerning the conversion of merit points acquired by the applicant in another institution, together with Administrative Notice No 48/2011 of 27 October 2011 publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 appraisal and promotion exercise, which does not include the name of the applicant;

               —

               As far as necessary, annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay damages assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 to make good the material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
21.12.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/21
2.    Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768 as amended by Directive 93/          Customs Code, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EEC)
      35 precludes national legislation which authorises the use of         No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
      information as referred to in Question 1 only on condition that       Customs Code, should be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt
      prior authorisation is granted by the competent Minister.             arising by reason of an offence or irregularity committed in connection
                                                                            with a consignment placed under the external Community transit
                                                                            procedure can be recovered from the principal by the office of departure
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 even if it did not notify the principal before the end of the 11th
                                                                            month following the date of registration of the Community transit
                                                                            declaration that the consignment had not been presented at the office
                                                                            of destination and that the place of the offence or irregularity could
                                                                            not be established. The same applies if the office of departure did not
                                                                            follow an administrative procedure for the transmission of infor-
                                                                            mation, such as the early warning system, or if the failure to comply
                                                                            with the time-limit was due to error or negligence on the part of that
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      office.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                      of 14 November 2002
in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskab-
et af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren
           Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) ( 1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External
Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery                                               (Fourth Chamber)
                of a customs debt — Conditions)
                          (2002/C 323/27)                                                          of 7 November 2002
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                       in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation
                   in the European Court Reports)                           — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                                lations)
In Case C-112/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                            (2002/C 323/28)
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SPKR 4
nr. 3482 ApS and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen,                                   (Language of the case: French)
Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition
ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS), on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            In Case C-184/01 P, Peter Hirschfeldt (Agents: J.-N. Louis and
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                V. Peere): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
                                                                            13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v EEA [2001]
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:                                                         ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-157, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                            aside and the claims at first instance allowed, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being: European Environment Agency,
Article 379(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of                 represented by J.-L. Salazar and J. Rivière, acting as Agents,
2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat, with an address for service
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community              in Luxembourg, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                   party uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical to a validly
D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                registered trade mark on goods which are identical to those for which
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Novem-              it is registered, the trade mark proprietor of the mark is entitled, in
ber 2002, in which it:                                                      circumstances such as those in the present case, to rely on Article
                                                                            5(1)(a) of that directive to prevent that use. It is immaterial that, in
                                                                            the context of that use, the sign is perceived as a badge of support for
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                 or loyalty or affiliation to the trade mark proprietor.
2.    Orders Mr Hirschfeldt to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                      of 12 November 2002
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01 (Reference for a
in Case C-206/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery                         de Dax): Jacques Bourrasse and Jean-Marie Perchicot ( 1)
   Division): Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed (1)
                                                                            (Transport— Directive 84/647/EEC — Use of vehicles hired
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/                        without drivers for the carriage of goods by road —
104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a) — Scope of the proprietor’s                       Registration of hired vehicles — Hired vehicles operating
                exclusive right to the trade mark)                          under Community authorisation — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 881/92 — Management of tachograph discs of hired
                                                                                vehicles — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85)
                          (2002/C 323/29)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/30)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-206/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Chancery Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Arsenal Football Club plc
and Matthew Reed, on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of
the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988                  In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01: Reference to the
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade              Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour d’appel de Pau (C-228/
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of:                         01) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Dax (C-289/01)
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,          (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),                    pending before those courts against Jacques Bourrasse (C-228/
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  01) and Jean-Marie Perchicot (C-289/01) Third parties: Union
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                régionale syndicale des petits et moyens transporteurs du Sud-
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the              Ouest (Unostra Aquitaine) (C-228/01), Fédération générale des
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 2002, in                     transports et de l’équipement CFDT (FGTE-CFDT) (C-289/01)
which it has ruled:                                                         and Inspection du travail des transports (C-228/01 and C-289/
                                                                            01), and on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive
                                                                            84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use of vehicles
In a situation which is not covered by Article 6(1) of the First Council    hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (OJ
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the                 1984 L 335, p. 72), as amended by Council Directive 90/398/
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, where a third            EEC of 24 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 202, p. 46), the Court (Second


title: Case C-144/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Articles 6 and 17 — Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24 — Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised — Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/29

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo
   (Case C-144/12) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Articles 6 and 17 - Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 24 - Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised - Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)
   2013/C 225/48
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

      Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) and of Article 17 thereof, in conjunction with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court seised by virtue of the entering of an appearance by the defendant in the absence of any challenge to jurisdiction and of a defence on the merits — Whether applicable in the case of the European order for payment procedure — If so, whether the defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State after having entered an appearance in the same case before a court of that State before which he lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment and raised arguments on the substance of the case

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case T-68/09: Action brought on 18 February 2009 — Soliver NV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/32

         Action brought on 18 February 2009 — Soliver NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-68/09)
   2009/C 90/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Soliver NV (Roeselare, Belgium) (represented by H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 in Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass, in so far as it finds that the applicant participated from 19 November 2001 to 11 March 2003 in the infringement established in that decision;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 in Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 396 000 on the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its application the applicant pleads infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and of the obligation to state reasons, and a manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts. The applicant submits that the contested decision incorrectly states that between 19 November 2001 and 11 March 2003 the applicant was a party to the infringement found in Article 1 of the contested decision.
   Second, the applicant submits that the value of sales figure taken by the Commission is not supported by reasons, is not in accordance with the Guidelines on the setting of fines, does not allow the applicant to defend itself, is contrary to the presumption of innocence, and infringes the principle of equal treatment.
   Third, the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality, the Guidelines on the setting of fines and the duty to state reasons. When calculating the basic amount of the applicant’s fine, the Commission applied an excessively high percentage of the value of its sales.
   Fourth, the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality and a manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts, by virtue of the fact that the Commission multiplied the applicant’s value of sales by the number of years during which the applicant was alleged to be a party to the infringement found in Article 1 of the contested decision.
   Fifth, the applicant alleges infringement of the prohibition of retroactive effect. According to the applicant, the Commission is applying the 2006 Guidelines (1) to an alleged infringement that took place before the enactment of those guidelines.
   Sixth, the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality and a manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts by virtue of the fact that the Commission increased the basic amount of the applicant’s fine by an additional amount of 16% of the applicant’s value of sales.
   Seventh, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 81 EC and the Guidelines on the setting of fines because, when calculating the applicant’s fine, the Commission refused to take into account various mitigating circumstances for the applicant.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case C-553/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Respect for private life — Erasure of data — Right of access to data and to information on the recipients of data — Time-limit on the exercise of the right to access)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer
   (Case C-553/07) (1)

   (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Respect for private life - Erasure of data - Right of access to data and to information on the recipients of data - Time-limit on the exercise of the right to access)
   2009/C 153/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam

      Defendant: M.E.E. Rijkeboer

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1)(e) and 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — National legislation limiting the right of access to data processed during the year prior to the request for access — Principle of proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data requires Member States to ensure a right of access to information on the recipients or categories of recipient of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed not only in respect of the present but also in respect of the past. It is for Member States to fix a time-limit for storage of that information and to provide for access to that information which constitutes a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the data subject in protecting his privacy, in particular by way of his rights to object and to bring legal proceedings and, on the other, the burden which the obligation to store that information represents for the controller.

               2.

               Rules limiting the storage of information on the recipients or categories of recipient of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed to a period of one year and correspondingly limiting access to that information, while basic data is stored for a much longer period, do not constitute a fair balance of the interest and obligation at issue, unless it can be shown that longer storage of that information would constitute an excessive burden on the controller. It is, however, for national courts to make the determinations necessary.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/18

         Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-426/03, C-427/03, C-428/03 and C-429/03 (1)

   (2005/C 115/34)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 15 December 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases C-426/03, C-427/03, C-428/03 and C-429/03: (references for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Massa Carrara): GE.M.E.G. Srl v Comune di Carrara CERIT SpA.(C-426/03), OMYA Spa v Comune di Carrara (C-427/03), Roberto Lorenzoni v Comune di Carrara Bipielle Riscossioni SpA (C-428/03) and DUEGI TRASPORTI Srl v Comune di Carrara (C-429/03).

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Case C-348/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection — Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano
   (Case C-348/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection - Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant))
   (2017/C 309/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Moussa Sacko

      Defendant: Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in particular Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court or tribunal hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting a manifestly unfounded application for international protection from dismissing the appeal without hearing the applicant where the factual circumstances leave no doubt as to whether that decision was well founded, on condition that, first, during the proceedings at first instance, the applicant was given the opportunity of a personal interview on his or her application for international protection, in accordance with Article 14 of the directive, and the report or transcript of the interview, if an interview was conducted, was placed on the case-file, in accordance with Article 17(2) of the directive, and, second, the court hearing the appeal may order that a hearing be conducted if it considers it necessary for the purpose of ensuring that there is a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, as required under Article 46(3) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case C-233/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic)) — Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor (Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims — Directive 76/308/EEC — Jurisdiction to review of the courts of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated — Enforceability of an instrument permitting enforcement — Lawfulness of notification of the instrument to the debtor — Notification in a language not understood by the addressee)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic)) — Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor
   (Case C-233/08) (1)

   (Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims - Directive 76/308/EEC - Jurisdiction to review of the courts of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated - Enforceability of an instrument permitting enforcement - Lawfulness of notification of the instrument to the debtor - Notification in a language not understood by the addressee)
   2010/C 63/09
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Milan Kyrian

      Defendant: Celní úřad Tábor

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvšší správní soud (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of the general principles of the right to a fair trial, sound administration and the rule of law, and of Article 12(3) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18), as amended by Council Directive 79/1071/EEC of 6 December 1979, amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 10), and by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17) — Competence of the courts in the Member State in which the requested authority has its seat to review, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force in that Member State, whether the instrument permitting enforcement of the claim is enforceable and has been properly served — Enforcement order not including the date of birth of the debtor and in a language which he does not understand and which is not an official language of the Member State requested

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(3) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member States where the requested authority is situated do not, in principle, have jurisdiction to review the enforceability of an instrument permitting enforcement. Conversely, where a court of that Member State hears a claim against the validity or correctness of the enforcement measures, such as the notification of the instrument permitting enforcement, that court has the power to review whether those measures were correctly effected in accordance with the laws and regulations of that Member State;

               2.

               In the framework of the mutual assistance introduced pursuant to Directive 76/308, as amended by Directive 2001/44, in order for the addressee of an instrument permitting enforcement to be placed in a position to enforce his rights, he must receive the notification of that instrument in an official language of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated. In order to ensure compliance with that right, it is for the national court to apply national law while taking care to ensure the full effectiveness of Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-271/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/61/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Incomplete and incorrect transposition)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-271/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/61/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Incomplete and incorrect transposition)
   (2008/C 171/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Partial, incorrect or non-existent transposition of Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of the transposition measures and that of the directive — Over-wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to the operating permits and the situations in which the conditions of the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By transposing in part or incorrectly Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-379/13: Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/50

         Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)
   (Case T-379/13)
   2013/C 260/89
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of April 19, 2013 in the matter R 1271/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the cost of the appeal proceeding before the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘NANO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 157 421

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-187/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Elena Vermisheva

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Elena Vermisheva
   (Case C-187/11)
   2011/C 211/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Treviso

      Defendant in the criminal proceedings

   Elena Vermisheva.

      Question referred

   In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and of the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third country national illegally staying in a Member State may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years where he fails to comply with the first order issued by the Questore and a term of imprisonment of up to five years for failure to comply with subsequent orders (with the corresponding obligation for the police authorities to arrest those engaged in the commission of this offence) simply on account of his lack of cooperation in the deportation procedure, in particular his simple failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-677/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Biogaran v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/59

      Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Biogaran v Commission
      (Case T-677/14)
      (2014/C 395/72)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Biogaran (Colombes, France) (represented by: T. Reymond, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Articles 1, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (AT.39612-Perindopril (SERVIER)) so far as they relate to Biogaran;

                  —

                  in the alternative, make use of its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce very substantially the fine imposed on Biogaran by Article 7 of that decision;

                  —

                  grant Biogaran the benefit of any annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in the action brought by the companies Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited, and draw all appropriate conclusions therefrom in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and arguments

      The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

                  1.

                  First plea, alleging an error of law in the contested decision, in that it does not show that the applicant participated in any infringement whatever of the competition rules.
                  The applicant claims that it did not commit in person any anti-competitive acts and could not be held liable for an amicable settlement agreement relating to patents concluded by its parent company, to which it was not party and of the content of which it was unaware.

                  2.

                  Second plea, alleging a distortion of the facts, in that the contested decision wrongly concluded that the licence and supply agreement which the applicant had concluded with the company Niche constituted a further incentive for that company to conclude the amicable settlement agreement relating to patents with the applicant’s parent company.

                  3.

                  Third plea, alleging, in the alternative, an error of law, in that a fine was imposed on the applicant even though the infringement held to have occurred was novel in nature.


title: Case T-669/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document emanating from Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure — Article 4(4) and (5) — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Refusal of access — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Partial access — Overriding public interest)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission
      (Case T-669/11) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document emanating from Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure - Article 4(4) and (5) - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Refusal of access - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Partial access - Overriding public interest))
      (2014/C 395/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy) (represented by: initially, V. Foerster and T. Pahl, and, subsequently, V. Foerster and E. George, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2011 refusing to allow the applicants access to the observations submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission on 7 July 2011 in the context of EU Pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-298/07: Action brought on 2 August 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/21

         Action brought on 2 August 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-298/07)
   (2007/C 235/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Memorandum No 04980 of 22 May 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested; Ref. DOCUP Ob. 2 ‘Lazio’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 05108 of 25 May 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning certification of the intermediate statement of expenses and claim for payment; Ref. DOCUP Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 005);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 05452 of 4 June 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested; Ref. DOCUP Piemonte 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 007);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 05665 of 8 June 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested; Ref. Regional operational programme ‘Campania’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

               —

               annul all connected and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case T-617/11: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/13

         Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)
   (Case T-617/11) (1)

   2012/C 373/23
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-112/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Ruiz Sanz and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development review — 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Ruiz Sanz and Others v Commission
   (Case T-112/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Reports procedure - Career development review - 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   (2007/C 170/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Manuel Ruiz Sanz (Tervuren, Belgium); Anna Maria Campogrande (Brussels, Belgium); and Friedrich Mühlbauer (Brussels) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Frabetti alone)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants; and, alternatively, of the applicants' career development reviews for that exercise.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-288/10: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Wamo BVBA v JBC NV, Modemakers Fashion NV (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/9

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Wamo BVBA v JBC NV, Modemakers Fashion NV
   (Case C-288/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions)
   2011/C 252/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wamo BVBA

      Defendants: JBC NV, Modemakers Fashion NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions during certain periods preceding sales in specified sectors.

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a general prohibition of announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions during the period preceding sales, in so far as the provision pursues objectives relating to consumer protection. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the situation in the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 February 1998 in Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to Commission documents - Decision refusing access to documents - Protection of the public interest (court proceedings))

text:
28.3.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/21
Kinshasa, represented by Nicolas Decker, of the                     GonzaÂlez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 January
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                      1998 in which it:
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie-
TheÂreÁse, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: initially, Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves          1. dismisses the application;
Vieira and, subsequently, Mr Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application, first, for annulment
of the decision' of the Committee for the Administration           2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
of Delegations, contained in a memorandum of 30 April
1996, and, second, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to              (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
1998, in which it:
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. dismisses the application;                                                             of 6 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v.
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                            public access to Commission documents Ð Decision
                                                                    refusing access to documents Ð Protection of the public
                                                                                interest (court proceedings))
                                                                                (98/C 94/55)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                          (Language of the case: German)
                     of 29 January 1998
in Case T-113/96: EÂdouard Dubois et Fils SA v. Council             In Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH,
of the European Union and Commission of the European                established in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Georg
                       Communities (1)                              M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
(Non-contractual liability Ð Single European Act Ð                  8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                       Customs agent)                               European Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker) Ð
                         (98/C 94/54)                               application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                    29 May 1996 confirming its refusal to grant the applicant
                                                                    access to certain of its documents Ð the Court of First
               (Language of the case: French)                       Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                    composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
                                                                    Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1998 in Case T-113/96: EÂdouard Dubois et Fils SA whose             6 February 1998, in which it:
registered office is in Roubaix (France), represented by
Pierre Ricard and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1. annuls the Commission's decision of 29 Mai 1996
Chambers of Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde v. Council of                 refusing the applicant access to certain documents held
the European Union (Agents: Guus Houttuin and Maria                     by the Commission;
Christina Giorgi) and Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser,
and Fernando Castillo de la Torre) Ð application for                2. dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph                 seeks the issue of directions to the Commission;
of Article 215 of the EC Treaty and for an order requiring
the Community to make good the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant owing to the completion, as of
                                                                    3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with
the Single European Act, and the consequent abolition of
the customs agency work in which it had been engaged                (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
until that date on French territory Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of M. García-Valdecasas (President
of the Chamber), J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 4 April 1995 in Case C-350/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - State aid incompatible with the common market - Recovery - Public holding company)

text:
 No C 137/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
  89/661 /EEC of 31 May 1989 concerning aid provided by                  1 . declares that, by failing to abolish and recover within the
 the Italian Government to Alfa Romeo, an undertaking in                      prescribed period the aid paid to the ENI-Lanerossi
 the motor vehicle sector (2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.                 Group (now SNAM SpA) in the amount of Lit 260,4
 Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler                            thousand million, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
  ( Rapporteur) ( President of Chamber ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.                its obligations under Commission Decision 89/43/EEC
 Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward and                       of 26 July 1988 on aids granted by the Italian
J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                 Government to ENI-Lanerossi;
 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 4 April 1995 , in which it:
                                                                        2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  1 . declares that, by failing to abolish and recover within the
       prescribed period the aid improperly paid to the Alfa            3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
       Romeo Group in the amount of Lit 615,1 thousand
       million plus default interest calculated from                    (') OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
       30 September 1989 to the date of payment of the                  ( 2 ) OJ No L 16 , 20 . 1 . 1989 , p . 52 .
       amount in question, the Italian Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision
       89/661 /EEC of 31 May 1989 concerning aid provided
       by the Italian Government to Alfa Romeo, an
       undertaking in the motor vehicle sector;
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 April 1995
 3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      in Case C-103/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre
 (') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .                                      (France)): Zoulika Krid v. Caisse Nationale d'Assurance
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 394, 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 9 .                                   Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS ) i})
                                                                        (EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement — Article 39 (1) —
                                                                        Direct effect — Principle ofnon-discrimination — Scope —
                                                                         Widow of Algerian worker who had been employed in a
                                                                        Member State — Supplementary allowance from the
                                                                                National Solidarity Fund)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/04 )
                          of 4 April 1995
in Case C-350/93 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )                                     (Language of the case: French)
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery —                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                     Public holding company)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 137/03 )
                                                                       In Case C-103/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des Affaires de Securite
                                                                       Sociale ( Social Security Court), Nanterre ( France ) for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                       court      between    Zoulika       Krid     and Caisse Nationale
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salaries ( CNAVTS )
                                                                       — on the interpretation of Article 39 ( 1 ) of the Cooperation
In Case C-350/93 : Commission of the European                          Agreement between the European Economic Community
Communities (Agents : Antonino Abate and Vittorio di                   and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in
Bucci ) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Luigi Ferrari Bravo ) —            Algiers on 26 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
application for a declaration that, by failing to abolish and          Community by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78 of
recover within the prescribed period the aid paid to the               26 September 1978 (2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
ENI-Lanerossi Group ( now SNAM SpA ) in the amount of                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler
Lit 260,4 thousand million, the Italian Republic has failed to         ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers ),
fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision 89/43/EEC             G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
of 26 July 1988 on aids granted by the Italian Government              J. L Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch
to ENI-Lanerossi ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.                  and L. Sevon, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; L.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler                      Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
( Rapporteur ) ( President of Chamber ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.          judgment on 5 April 1995 , in which it:
Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward and
J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 Article 39 (1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement between the
judgment on 4 April 1995 , in which it:                                European Economic Community and the People 's


title: Case C-7/07: Order of the President of the Court of 6 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of France

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of France
   (Case C-7/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/57)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-171/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/57

         Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)
   (Case T-171/17)
   (2017/C 144/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M & K Srl (Prato, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Genfoot, Inc. (Montreal, Québec, Canada)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KIMIKA’ — Application for registration No 13 233 391

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2017 in Case R 1206/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the applicant is admissible and well founded; and consequently

               —

               reform the contested decision;

               —

               send the case back to EUIPO for a reforming decision and therefore give way to a definitive registration of the EU trade mark No 13 233 391 even in the classes contested;

               —

               condemn the counterpart to pay fees and costs of the three proceeding.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred when it assessed the risk of confusion between the trade marks.


title: Case T-316/15: Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/75

         Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-316/15)
   (2015/C 294/90)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 31 March 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 2230) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (1), by finding that the investment in the creation of shared services centres, including the employment of specialists in the IT sector designing innovative services, did not constitute ‘productive investment which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that it could not be co-financed from resources of the European Regional Development Fund.

               2.

               Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from resources of the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that only investments with ‘radical innovative potential’ may be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project, by finding that it did not ensure compliance with priority axis 4 of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme in view of its lack of innovative character.

               3.

               Third plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by finding a lack of justification for allowing a public contribution, and incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that the payment of dividends on the terms envisaged in the project precluded allowing co-financing.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project, changing the approach to the possibility of financing investments in the services sector in the course of that appraisal, and disregarding the explanations of the Polish authorities on the innovative character of the project.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 1).


title: Case C-131/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 9 March 2012 — Google Spain, S.L., Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 9 March 2012 — Google Spain, S.L., Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González
   (Case C-131/12)
   2012/C 165/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Nacional

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Google Spain, S.L., Google Inc.

      Respondents: Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González

      Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the territorial application of Directive 95/46/EC (1) and, consequently, of the Spanish data-protection legislation:

                           1.1.

                           must it be considered that an ‘establishment’, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC, exists when any one or more of the following circumstances arise:

                                       —

                                       when the undertaking providing the search engine sets up in a Member State an office or subsidiary for the purpose of promoting and selling advertising space on the search engine, which orientates its activity towards the inhabitants of that State,
                                       or

                                       —

                                       when the parent company designates a subsidiary located in that Member State as its representative and controller for two specific filing systems which relate to the data of customers who have contracted for advertising with that undertaking,
                                       or

                                       —

                                       when the office or subsidiary established in a Member State forwards to the parent company, located outside the European Union, requests and requirements addressed to it both by data subjects and by the authorities with responsibility for ensuring observation of the right to data protection, even where such collaboration is engaged in voluntarily?

                           1.2.

                           Must Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 95/46/EC be interpreted as meaning that there is ‘use of equipment … situated on the territory of that Member State’
                           when a search engine uses crawlers or robots to locate and index information contained in web pages located on servers in that Member State
                           or
                           when it uses a domain name pertaining to a Member State and arranges for searches and the results thereof to be based on the language of that Member State?

                           1.3.

                           Is it possible to regard as a use of equipment, in the terms of Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 95/46/EC, the temporary storage of the information indexed by internet search engines? If the answer to that question is affirmative, can it be considered that that connecting factor is present when the undertaking refuses to disclose the place where it stores those indexes, invoking reasons of competition?

                           1.4.

                           Regardless of the answers to the foregoing questions and particularly in the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union considers that the connecting factors referred to in Article 4 of the Directive are not present:
                           must Directive 95/46/EC on data protection be applied, in the light of Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, in the Member State where the centre of gravity of the conflict is located and more effective protection of the rights of European Union citizens is possible?

               2.

               As regards the activity of search engines as providers of content in relation to Directive 95/46/EC on data protection:

                           2.1.

                           in relation to the activity of the search engine of the “Google” undertaking on the internet, as a provider of content, consisting in locating information published or included on the net by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and finally making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference, when that information contains personal data of third parties,
                           must an activity like the one described be interpreted as falling within the concept of “processing of … data” used in Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46/EC?

                           2.2.

                           If the answer to the foregoing question is affirmative, and once again in relation to an activity like the one described: must Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking managing the “Google” search engine is to be regarded as the “controller” of the personal data contained in the web pages that it indexes?

                           2.3.

                           In the event that the answer to the foregoing question is affirmative, may the national data-control authority (in this case the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos — Spanish Data Protection Agency), protecting the rights embodied in Articles 12(b) and 14(a) of Directive 95/46/EC, directly impose on the search engine of the “Google” undertaking a requirement that it withdraw from its indexes an item of information published by third parties, without addressing itself in advance or simultaneously to the owner of the web page on which that information is located?

                           2.4.

                           In the event that the answer to the foregoing question is affirmative, would the obligation of search engines to protect those rights be excluded when the information that contains the personal data has been lawfully published by third parties and is kept on the web page from which it originates?

               3.

               Regarding the scope of the right of erasure and/or the right to object, in relation to the “derecho al olvido” (the “right to be forgotten”), the following question is asked:

                           3.1

                           must it be considered that the rights to erasure and blocking of data, provided for in Article 12(b), and the right to object, provided for by Article 14(a), of Directive 95/46/EC, extend to enabling the data subject to address himself to search engines in order to prevent indexing of the information relating to him personally, published on third parties’ web pages, invoking his wish that such information should not be known to internet users when he considers that it might be prejudicial to him or he wishes it to be consigned to oblivion, even though the information in question has been lawfully published by third parties?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case T-842/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — Airpressure Bodyforming v OHIM (Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/50

         Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Airpressure Bodyforming v OHIM (Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming)
   (Case T-842/14)
   (2015/C 065/68)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Airpressure Bodyforming GmbH (Berchtesgaden, Germany) (represented by: S. Merz, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming’ — Application No 12 533 709

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 1570/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case F-17/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 February 2013 — BB v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agent — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 February 2013 — BB v Commission
   (Case F-17/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contractual agent - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   2013/C 101/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BB (represented by: A. Blot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the defendant not to renew the contract of the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The application is dismissed

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay one third of the costs incurred by BB.

               3.

               BB shall bear two-thirds of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 33.