title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2000 in Case C-435/99: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directives 76/464/EEC, 78/176/EEC, 78/659/EEC, 80/68/EEC, 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC and 86/280/EEC)

text:
21.4.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 118/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     —     Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
                                                                                Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on
                                                                                limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges
                          (First Chamber)                                        by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (OJ 1982 L 81,
                                                                                p. 29),
                      of 12 December 2000
                                                                           —     Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC of
                                                                                26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives
in Case C-435/99: Commission of the European Communi-                            for cadmium discharges (OJ 1983 L 291, p. 1),
                 ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                           —     Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March
                                                                                1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electroly-
to transpose Directives 76/464/EEC, 78/176/EEC,
                                                                                sis industry (OJ 1984 L 74, p. 49),
78/659/EEC, 80/68/EEC, 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC,
         84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC and 86/280/EEC)
                                                                           —     Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC of
                                                                                9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for
                          (2001/C 118/08)
                                                                                discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane (OJ 1984 L 274,
                                                                                p. 11), and
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        —     Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 86/280/EEC of
                                                                                12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                                discharges of certain dangerous substances included in
                                                                                List 1 of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (OJ 1986
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           L 181, p. 16), as amended most recently by Council
                   in the European Court Reports)                                Directive 90/415/EEC of 27 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 219,
                                                                                p. 49),
In Case C-435/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Ström and A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic
                                                                           as those provisions are worded pursuant to amendment by
(Agents: J.L. Fernandes, M. Romão and LL. Fernandes) —
application for a declaration that, by having failed to send the           Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December
Commission the necessary reports on the implementation of:                 1991 standardising and rationalising reports on the implemen-
                                                                           tation of certain Directives relating to the environment
                                                                           (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48), the Portuguese Republic has failed to
—     Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May               fulfil its obligations under the provisions of the directives
      1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substan-               mentioned above and under the first paragraph of Article 5,
      ces discharged into the aquatic environment of the                   and the third paragraph of Article 189, of the EC Treaty (now,
      Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23),                                    the first paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of
                                                                           Article 249 EC), — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                           M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
—     Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC of 20 Febru-              and L. Sevón Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
      ary 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
      (OJ 1978 L 54, p. 19), as amended by Council Directive               12 December 2000, in which it:
      83/29/EEC of 24 January 1983 (OJ 1983 L 32, p. 28),
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by having failed to submit to the Commission
—     Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July                      the necessary reports on the implementation of:
      1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection
      or improvement in order to support fish life (OJ 1978
      L 222, p. 1), as amended most recently by the act                          —     Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May
      concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom                            1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
      of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments                         discharged into the aquatic environment of the Com-
      to the Treaties (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23),                                          munity,
—     Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of                            —     Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC of 20 Febru-
      17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater                                ary 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry, as
      against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances                         amended by Council Directive 83/29/EEC of 24 January
      (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43),                                                           1983,
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          21.4.2001
      —     Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or
            improvement in order to support fish life, as amended
            most recently by the act concerning the conditions of                                       (Sixth Chamber)
            accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
            Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,                                            of 14 December 2000
      —     Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of                  in Case C-245/97: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
            17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater                           mission of the European Communities (1)
            against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances,
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 financial year
                                                                                — Promotion of milk products)
      —     Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
            Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on
            limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges                                   (2001/C 118/09)
            by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      —     Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC of
            26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives
            for cadmium discharges,                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      —     Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March
            1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury          In Case C-245/97: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
            discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis   E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski) v Commission of the European
            industry,                                                        Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and I. Brinker) —
                                                                             application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision
                                                                             97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts
                                                                             presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
      —     Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC of          for 1993 on the Guarantee Section of the European Agricul-
            9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for        tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139,
            discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane, and                         p. 30) in so far as it refused to charge to the EAGGF the sums
                                                                             of DEM 608 583,40, representing expenditure on promoting
                                                                             milk, and DEM 485 466,68 for failure to comply with
      —     Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 86/280/EEC of          deadlines for payments to farmers under a scheme for the
            12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for          temporary set aside of arable land — the Court (Sixth
            discharges of certain dangerous substances included in           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
            List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC, as amended          Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
            most recently by Council Directive 90/415/EEC of                 N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
            27 July 1990,                                                    trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December
                                                                             2000, in which it:
as those provisions are worded pursuant to amendment by Article              1.    Annuls Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997
2(1) of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991                           on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States
standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of                   in respect of the expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee Section
certain Directives relating to the environment, the Portuguese Republic            of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of the directives        (EAGGF) in so far as it refused to charge to the EAGGF the
mentioned above.                                                                   sum of DEM 608 583,40 representing expenditure incurred
                                                                                by the Federal Republic of Germany on promoting milk (budget
                                                                                item 2062).
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.


title: Case F-143/15: Action brought on 19 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/45

         Action brought on 19 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-143/15)
   (2016/C 068/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Fombaron, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking annulment of the decision terminating early his employment at the European Parliament.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision dated 19 August 2015 rejecting the complaint brought on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 25 February 2015;

               —

               annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 2 February 2015;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-243/11: Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/19

         Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE)
   (Case T-243/11)
   2011/C 194/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Benito, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farmodiética — Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, Lda (Estarda de S.Marcos, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Stay the proceedings until an invalidity action in Portugal is decided since this invalidity action is challenging the only basis upon which the CTM No 6472971 was rejected, and if this invalidity action is not successful;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2011 in case R 665/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ADVANCE’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6472971

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 417744 for the figurative mark ‘ADVANCIS CAPS MORE BIOAVAILABLE. MORE EFFECTIVE’, for goods in classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 65(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) deemed that the applicant did not challenge the opposition division’s decision of 25 February 2010 as regards the similarity of the goods concerned, (ii) deemed that there was no reason to depart from the opposition division’s decision of 25 February 2010 as regards the similarity of the goods concerned, (iii) did not analyse whether the goods concerned in class 3 are similar or dissimilar to the goods concerned in class 5, (iv) did not explain why it was relevant to take into account how the signs are pronounced in English when the relevant territory is Portugal, (v) deemed that the conflicting marks are similar from an aural point of view in English, (vi) applied the incorrect tests as regards comparison of the signs, thus wrongly finding the level of similarity to be average, and (vii) applied incorrect and incomplete tests in assessing global likelihood of confusion.


               30.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/11

         Action brought on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-7/15)
   (2015/C 143/12)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by:

                           (i)

                           surpassing the limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the ambient air during the years 2008 to 2012 variously in the zones NO1, NO3, NO4, NO5 and NO6 referred to in Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 1999/30/EC, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC; and

                           (ii)

                           failing to comply with the air quality plan obligation as set out in Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, now Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC variously as regards zones NO1, NO2, NO3, NO4 and NO5;

                     Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 14c of Annex XX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe).

               2.

               Order Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               Council Directive 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, now Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, imposes limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air in order to avoid, prevent and reduce harmful effects on human health and the environment as whole. It also establishes provisions for the assessment of pollutants as well as measures to maintain good air quality.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Norway has failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the levels of certain pollutants in ambient air do not exceed the limit values set out in EEA law.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority also submits that Norway has failed to comply with the obligation to draw up suitable air quality plans where limit values plus the relevant margin of tolerance have been exceeded.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority states that Norway has not challenged any of the shortcomings identified by the Authority in its responses to the letter of formal notice and reasoned opinion.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority claims that by failing to include the details of adopted measures or projects and a timetable for their implementation, as well as an estimate of the improvement of air quality planned and the expected timeframe required to attain these objectives, Norway has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, now Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Commission of the European Communities against French Republic (Case C-373/98)

text:
C 378/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
(Finance Court) Düsseldorf (Fourth Senate) of 5 October            Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Commission of
1998, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 1998,               the European Communities against French Republic
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Brinkmann
Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld on the                                       (Case C-373/98)
following questions:                                                                        (98/C 378/19)
Does paragraph 4.1.2 of the Tabaksteuergesetz (Law on
Tobacco Tax) in the version current as at 21.12.1992
(Bundesgesetzblatt 1992, Part I, p. 2150) constitute an            An action against the French Republic was brought before
incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) of Council                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                      16 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other               Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
than cigarettes (OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 10)?;                    Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
                                                                   civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                   Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
If the Court of Justice answers that question in the               office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
affirmative:                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Does Article 3(1) of that directive confer upon a person
chargeable to tobacco tax a direct right to be taxed in            The applicant claims that the Court should:
accordance with the directive, with the result that the
national courts are to set aside the minimum rate of tax
which is applied to cigars/cigarillos in Germany contrary
to the wording of the directive?'                                  1. declare that by failing to take all the necessary
                                                                        measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of
                                                                        27 April 1988 in Case 252/85 (1), the French Republic
                                                                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171(1)
                                                                        of the EC Treaty;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel,
                                                                   2. order the French Republic to pay a periodic penalty
Lyon (Seventh Chamber) by judgment of that court of
                                                                        payment of ECU 105 500 per day in respect of each
16 September 1998 in the case of MinisteÁre Public against
                                                                        day as from the notification of the abovementioned
    Yannick Geffroy Ð Civilly liable: SNC Casino France
                                                                        judgment until it complies with the obligations
                       (Case C-366/98)                                  referred to at paragraph 1;
                         (98/C 378/18)
                                                                   3. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
(Court of Appeal), Lyon (Seventh Chamber), of
16 September 1998, received at the Court Registry on               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
14 October 1998, for the preliminary ruling in the case of
MinisteÁre Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) v. Yannick
Geffroy Ð Civilly responsible: SNC Casino France, on the
                                                                   Ð The Commission finds that in so far as it is aware:
following question:
Do the combined provisions of Article 30 of the EC                      Ð the list of protected bird species the taking or
Treaty and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                    keeping of whose eggs or the destruction or
18 December 1978. On the approximation of the laws of                       removal of whose nests must be prohibited still
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation                   does not include all those mentioned in Council
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate                      Directive 79/409/EEC (2);
consumer (1) preclude the application of national
legislation such as that contained in Decree No 84-1147
of 7 December 1984, applying the Law of 1 August 1905                   Ð the bird species the keeping of which is prohibited
which was applicable at the time, as amended by Article                     under French legislation have still not been defined
L. 213-1 et seq. of the Code de la Consommation                             in a manner which corresponds exactly with the
(Consumer Code)?                                                            requirements of the directive.
(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.
                                                                   Ð In fixing the amount of the periodic penalty payment
                                                                        which it proposes to impose, the Commission has
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 378/11
      relied on the criteria which it defined in its                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      communications of 5 June 1996 (3) and of 8 January
      1997 (4). In so doing, it applied a weighting of 4/20 in
      respect of the seriousness of the infringement and 2,5/
      3 in respect of the duration. Finally, it set a coefficient      Ð Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/
      of 21,1 for factor (n) relating to France (in accordance              409/EEC: France is under an obligation to adopt
      with its communication of 8 January 1997).                            special conservation measures concerning the Basses
                                                                            CorbieÁres' and in particular to classify that area as a
                                                                            special protection area as provided in Article 4(1) and
(1 ) [1988] ECR 2243.                                                       (2) of the Wild Birds' Directive. The area provides a
(2 ) OJ L 103, 25.8.1979, p. 1.                                             habitat for several species listed in Annex I to the Wild
(3)  OJ C 242, 21.8.1996, p. 6.                                             Birds Directive, a number of which are in danger of
(4 ) OJ C 63, 28.2.1997, p. 2.                                              extinction, are rare or require particular attention
                                                                            because of the specific nature of their habitat.
                                                                            Moreover, the area in question plays an important
                                                                            part in the migration of birds of prey. Finally, although
                                                                            the French authorities adopted an order concerning
                                                                            biotopes on the ground that one of the last two pairs
                                                                            of Bonnelli's eagles (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in the
                                                                            deÂpartement has its nesting grounds there, no special
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by the Commission                         conservation measure was adopted or planned so far
of the European Communities against the French Republic                     as concerns the other species included in Annex I to
                                                                            the Wild Birds Directive, which have their habitats in
                          (Case C-374/98)                                   the Basses CorbieÁres', or in so far as concerns
                                                                            migratory species, in particular the birds of prey which
                            (98/C 378/20)                                   frequent the area.
                                                                       Ð Infringement of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive
An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                            92/43/EEC: the obligations imposed by the first
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                            sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC in a
16 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            special protection area must also be fulfilled where
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                            such a zone, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) of the
Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
                                                                            directive, has not yet been created (judgment in Case
civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                            C-355/90) (3). In view of the fact that since 10 June
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            1994, the date of transposition of Directive 92/43/
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                            EEC, the obligations under Article 6(2), (3) and (4)
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            thereof replaced those under the first sentence of
                                                                            Article 4(4) of the Wild Birds Directive, the
                                                                            Commission is of the view that the obligations of the
                                                                            Habitats' Directive were to be fulfilled with effect
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            from 10 June 1994, in the case of the Basses
                                                                            CorbieÁres' area, even if it had not yet been classified
                                                                            as a special protection area under Article 4(1) and (2)
                                                                            of the Wild Birds Directive. However, the Commission
Ð declare, first, that, by failing to classify the area of the
                                                                            considers that the implementation of a project to open
      Basses CorbieÁres' as a special protection area for the
                                                                            and operate limestone quarries within the area
      conservation of certain species of birds listed in
                                                                            concerned is a clear indication that the French
      Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1), and of
                                                                            authorities have not adopted adequate measures to
      certain migrating species not listed in Annex I, and by
                                                                            avoid disturbance of the species which have their
      also failing to adopt special conservation measures
                                                                            habitat there. The tardy attempt to show, ex post
      concerning their habitat, contrary to Article 4(1) and
                                                                            facto, that the acts authorising the installation of the
      (2) thereof, and, secondly, that, failing to take the
                                                                            industrial plant did observe the requirements of
      appropriate measures concerning              the   Basses
                                                                            Directive 92/43/EEC does not remove the infringement
      CorbieÁres' to avoid disturbance of the species under
                                                                            of that directive.
      protection in that area as well as the deterioration of
      habitats likely to have a significant effect, following
      the opening and operation of limestone quarries                  (1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
      within the communes of Tautavel and Vingrau,                         conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.8.1979, p. 1).
      contrary to Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive               (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
      Council 92/43/EEC (2), the French Republic has failed                conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty; and                      (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).
                                                                       (3) Case C-355/90 Commission v. Spain [1993] ECR I-4221.
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2005 in Case T-352/03, Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Staff report — Delay in drawing up report — Action for damages)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 June 2005
   in Case T-352/03, Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Community officials - Staff report - Delay in drawing up report - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 205/34)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-352/03, Giorgio Lebedef, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for damages by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the delay in drawing up the staff report for the 1999/2001 period, — the Court of First Instance, composed of V. Tiili, Judge, Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

               1)

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 950.

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3)

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004


title: Case T-390/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2009 — Bank Melli Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Misuse of powers — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Right to property — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Competence of the Community)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2009 — Bank Melli Iran v Council
   (Case T-390/08) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Judicial review - Misuse of powers - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Right to property - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Competence of the Community)
   2009/C 282/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent, assisted by S. Lee, Barrister); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, L. Butel and E. Belliard, Agents); and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Aalto and E. Cujo, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of paragraph 4 of Table B of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29) in so far as it relates to Bank Melli Iran and its branches.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Melli Bank to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the Commission of the European Union to bear their own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-446/09: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/34

         Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission
   (Case T-446/09) (1)

   2012/C 109/67
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-592/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 18 December 2012 — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España, S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 18 December 2012 — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España, S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda)
   (Case C-592/12)
   2013/C 79/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compañía Europea de Viajeros España, S.A.

      Defendant: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it the case that Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, in particular, the requirement of a ‘specific purpose’ for a particular levy

                           (a)

                           must be interpreted as requiring that the purpose pursued is not capable of being achieved by means of another harmonised levy?

                           (b)

                           must be interpreted as meaning that there is a purely budgetary purpose when a particular levy has been established simultaneously with the transfer of certain competences to certain Autonomous Communities to which, in turn, are transferred the proceeds of the levy with the aim of covering, in part, the costs associated with the competences transferred, it being permissible to lay down rates of levy that vary as between Autonomous Communities?

                           (c)

                           If the previous question is answered in the negative, must the term ‘specific purpose’ be interpreted as meaning that the purpose must be exclusive or, on the contrary, that it permits the attainment of various differentiated aims, among which is also included the merely budgetary aim of obtaining financing for certain competences?

                           (d)

                           If the answer to the previous question is that the attainment of various aims is permitted, what degree of relevance must be displayed by a particular objective, for the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12, in order to fulfil the requirement that the levy should meet a ‘specific purpose’ in the sense accepted by the case-law of the Court of Justice and what would be the criteria for defining the principal purpose as compared with the ancillary purpose?

               2.

               Does Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, in particular, the condition of complying with the tax rules applicable to excise duties or VAT for the determination of chargeability,

                           (a)

                           preclude an indirect non-harmonised levy, such as the IVMDH, which becomes chargeable at the time of the retail sale of the fuel to the final consumer, in contrast to the harmonised levy (Impuesto sobre Hidrocarburos, which becomes chargeable when the products leave the last tax warehouse), or value added tax which, although also becoming chargeable at the time of the final retail sale, is payable at each stage of the production and distribution process, since it does not — to use the terms of the judgment in EKW and Wein & Co
                               (2) (paragraph 47) — accord with the ‘general scheme’ of one or other of the abovementioned taxation techniques as structured by the Community legislation?

                           (b)

                           In the event that the foregoing question is answered in the negative, must the interpretation be that the said compliance condition is fulfilled, without the need for any coinciding of the effects of the chargeability, on account of the mere circumstance that the non-harmonised indirect levy, in this case the IVMDH, does not disrupt — in the sense that it does not impede or render difficult — the normal functioning of the chargeability of excise duties or VAT?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

      (2)  Judgment of 9 March 2000 (Case C-437/97, ECR I-1157).


title: Case T-40/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Ritec International Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/33

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Ritec International Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-40/05)
   (2005/C 93/63)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Ritec International Limited, established in Enfield (United Kingdom), represented by P.H.L.M. Kuypers and M.J. Osse, lawyers with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the applicant does not require to obtain an exemption under Article 5(7) Regulation 2037/2000/EC for its particular use of HCFC-141b in the product ‘ClearShield’;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to take as soon as possible a new decision in accordance with the ruling of the Court, should the Court declare that the applicant is required to obtain an exemption under Article 5(7) Regulation 2037/2000 for its particular use of HCFC-141b in the product ‘ClearShield’;

               —

               declare that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that for its particular use of HCFC-141b in the product ‘ClearShield’ no technically and economically feasible alternative substance or technology is available nor can be used in the sense of Article 5(7) Regulation 2037/2000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 5(7) of Regulation 2037/2000/EC (1) allows the Commission, following a request by a competent authority of a Member State, to authorise a time-limited exemption allowing the use and placing on the market of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, in cases where it is demonstrated that, for a particular use, technically and economically feasible alternative substances or technologies are not available or cannot be used. The competent authority of the United Kingdom filed such a request to obtain, for the applicant, an exemption for its particular use of HCFC-141b in its product ‘ClearShield’, a glass protection product. On 23 November 2004 the Commission rejected this application.
   The applicant considers that the Commission misunderstood the way in which the applicant uses HCFC-141b and further contests the Commission's assertions that products similar to non-flammable ‘ClearShield’ are marketed, that the applicant was planning to release the flammable ‘ClearShield’ or a spray booth in 2005, that flammable glass protection products can be rendered safe for the applicator when the flammable product is applied in a spray booth, and that it has had sufficient time to replace the use of HCFC-141b with alternatives. It further contends that the contested decision fails to take into account that the applicant has found an alternative to the use of HCFC-141b. At the same time the applicant challenges the Commission's finding that several non-HCFC alternatives are available but not yet implemented due to flammability concerns or that they are used by other companies within the EU market. The applicant submits that it has found only one alternative which is not commercially available.
   The applicant further challenges the Commission's findings that use of HCFC-141b had already been banned under Regulation 3093/1994 (2) and that an exemption under Article 5 (7) of Regulation 2037/2000 was necessary for the applicant's continued use of that substance. According to the applicant its particular use of HCFC-141b is not covered by regulation 2037/2000 or, at the very least, will be prohibited only after 2015.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision infringes Article 253 EC by failing to state the reasons on which it is based.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, OJ L 244 p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, OJ L 333 p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas)

text:
C 79/6                     EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             10.3.2001
A Member State may prohibit imports of bovine heads containing              and Vingrau, France, contrary to Article 6(2) to (4) of Council
material presenting risks as regards bovine spongiform encephalopa-         Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
thy, by way of an interim protective measure within the meaning of          natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive                p. 7), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in              under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal         of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber,
market, where the Commission has adopted, pursuant to Article 9(4)          V. Skouris and R. Schintgen, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
of that directive, a decision such as Commission Decision 97/534/EC         General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, requiring       which it:
the removal of, and prohibiting the use of, such material but where
the date on which the measures laid down by that decision are to            1.    Declares that, by not classifying any part of the Basses Corbières
become applicable has been postponed.                                             site as a special protection area and by not adopting special
                                                                                conservation measures for that site sufficient in their geographi-
                                                                                cal extent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                         under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
                                                                                1979 on the conservation of wild birds;
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 7 December 2000
in Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild
                 birds — Special protection areas)                                                  of 7 December 2000
                                                                            in Case C-482/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                             (2001/C 79/10)
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Action for annulment — Council Directive 92/83/EEC —
                                                                            Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol
                                                                            and alcoholic beverages — Commission Decision 98/617/EC
                                                                            of 21 October 1998 denying authority to Italy to refuse the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             duty under Council Directive 92/83 — Cosmetic products)
In Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communities                                                (2001/C 79/11)
(Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
cation for a declaration, first, that, by failing to classify the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Basses Corbières site, France, as a special protection area for
the conservation of certain species of birds listed in Annex I to
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of certain             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
migratory species not listed in that Annex, and by also failing                                 in the European Court Reports)
to adopt special conservation measures concerning their
habitat, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive, and,           In Case C-482/98: Italian Republic (Agents: Professor U. Lean-
second, that, by failing to take appropriate steps in relation to           za, assisted by O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European
the Basses Corbières to avoid disturbance of the species                    Communities (Agent: E. Traversa) — application for annulment
protected on that site and deterioration of their habitat likely            of Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998
to have a significant effect, as a result of the opening and                denying authority to Italy to refuse the grant of exemption to
working of limestone quarries in the municipalities of Tautavel             certain products exempt from excise duty under Council


18.3.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 79/43
       Removal from the register of Case T-196/98 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-208/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/91)                                                             (2000/C 79/93)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 26 November 1999, the President of the Third                  By order of 27 January 2000, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of Case T-196/98: Eduardo Peña Abizanda and Others v                     Case T-208/99, Martin Bangemann v Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Union.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-101/99 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-324/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/92)                                                             (2000/C 79/94)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 January 2000, the President of the Second                  By order of 11 January 2000, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-101/99: Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European                   Case T-324/99: Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants
Communities.                                                              pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne (TAO/AFI)
                                                                          and Rosario De Simone v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case C-55/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v État Belge

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v État Belge
   (Case C-55/14)
   2014/C 102/32
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

      Defendant: État belge
   Does the making available of the facilities of a sports installation used exclusively for footballing purposes, understood as being the right to use and exploit the football stadium playing surface (the pitch) and the players’ and referees’ changing rooms on an ad hoc basis for up to 18 days per season (a season starting on 1 July each calendar year and ending on 30 June the following year), constitute an exempt letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)), (2) in so far as the party granting the right of use and exploitation:

               —

               is fully entitled to confer identical rights on other natural or legal persons of its choice in respect of days other than the 18 days referred to above;

               —

               has the right to access those facilities at any time, without the prior consent of the holder of the right of use and exploitation, in order, in particular, to satisfy itself of the proper use of the facilities and to pre-empt any damage, on the sole condition that it does not disrupt the smooth running of sports events;

               —

               retains, in addition, a right of permanent control over access to those facilities, including during the period of their use by RFCT;

               —

               seeks a flat-rate fee of EUR 1 750 per day for use of the playing surface, the changing rooms, the bar and the caretaking, surveillance and monitoring service for the facilities as a whole, it being understood that it has been agreed between the parties that, of the amount sought, 20% represents the right of access to the football pitch and 80% the consideration for various services connected with the maintenance, cleaning, upkeep (mowing, sowing, and so on) and regulatory compliance of the playing surface and ancillary services supplied by the party granting the right of use and exploitation (namely, RCA, the present appellant)?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-755/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills/Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/37

         Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills/Commission
   (Case T-755/14)
   (2015/C 026/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070 of the European Commission, of 24 September 2014, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070, of 24 September 2014, whereby the Commission refused the Applicant’s request for access under Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to certain documents related to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 3 April 2014, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2).
   In support of this action, the Applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that none of the undisclosed documents identified by the Commission falls within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that certain undisclosed documents identified by the Commission do not fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the Applicant's access to documents request.

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

      (2)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.


title: Case C-121/08: Action brought on 19 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/17

         Action brought on 19 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-121/08)
   (2008/C 116/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kontou-Durande and L. Pignataro)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/61/EC (1) of 30 September 2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements and notification of serious adverse reactions and events, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/61 into domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 32.


title: Case T-21/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — Franmax v OHIM — Ehrmann (Dino)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/32

      Action brought on 19 January 2015 — Franmax v OHIM — Ehrmann (Dino)
      (Case T-21/15)
      (2015/C 107/41)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dino’ — Application for registration No 10 809 481

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2012/2013-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea(s) in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-603/11: Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/64

      Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission
      (Case T-603/11)
      (2012/C 25/122)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Doreste Hernández, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the rejection decision of the Secretary General of the European Commission denying access to the documents requested by the applicant in proceedings GESTDEM 2011/6, and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The documents to which the applicant has sought access and which are at issue in these proceedings are the same as those in Case T-341/11 Ecologistas en acción-CODA v Commission.
      The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in that case, seeking the annulment of the implied rejection decision denying the applicant access to the requested documents.


title: Case C-257/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-257/15)
   (2015/C 279/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that extraordinary circumstances which arise during a preceding flight continue to constitute extraordinary circumstances in relation to the flight at issue in the case where the airline operator has the possibility to avoid delay in the remaining flights of the flight sequence by not carrying out certain flights within that flight sequence?

               2.

               If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the extraordinary circumstances have arisen on the same day, the previous day or, more generally, only within the scheduled flight sequence?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-605/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 22(1) — Proceedings concerning rights in rem in immovable property — Concept — Action to terminate, by way of sale, the co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/18

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu
   (Case C-605/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(1) - Proceedings concerning rights in rem in immovable property - Concept - Action to terminate, by way of sale, the co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property))
   (2016/C 068/22)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu

      Defendants: Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first paragraph of Article 22(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property by way of sale, by an appointed agent, falls within the category of proceedings ‘which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case T-453/14: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Pannonhalmi Főapátság v Parliament (Action for annulment — Petition addressed to the Parliament concerning ownership of Lónyay castle in Rusovce (Slovak Republic) — Petition declared inadmissible — Obligation to state reasons — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/28

         Order of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Pannonhalmi Főapátság v Parliament
   (Case T-453/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Petition addressed to the Parliament concerning ownership of Lónyay castle in Rusovce (Slovak Republic) - Petition declared inadmissible - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 381/30)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (Pannonhalma, Hungary) (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Pospíšilová Padowska and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 whereby that Committee declared the petition presented by the applicant on 26 June 2013 inadmissible on the ground that it did not fall within the sphere of activity of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by the Slovak Republic and by Hungary.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-349/10 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 March 2011 — Claro SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Telefónica SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 March 2011 — Claro SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Telefónica SA
   (Case C-349/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 252/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Claro SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Telefónica SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2010 in Case T-225/09 Claro v OHIM and Telefónica, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Claro SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: EU action on oil exploration and extraction in Europe European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU action on oil exploration and extraction in Europe

text:
               20.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CE 371/10

         Thursday 7 October 2010EU action on oil exploration and extraction in Europe
   P7_TA(2010)0352
   European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU action on oil exploration and extraction in Europe
   2011/C 371 E/03

      The European Parliament,
   having regard to Article 11 and Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   having regard to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,
   having regard to the Natura 2000 network established by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) (1) and to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (2), as the primary means of protection of European marine biodiversity,
   having regard to the targets and requirements for achieving favourable and good environmental status in European coastal and marine waters, as set out in Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive) (3) and in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive,
   having regard to the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (4),
   having regard to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,
   having regard to the oil drilling rigs in EU waters,
   having regard to the questions of 7 September 2010 to the Council and to the Commission on the implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for the EU and on EU action on oil extraction and exploration in the EU (O-0122/2010 – B7-0470/2010, O-0123/2010 – B7-0551/2010),
   having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

               A.

               whereas in the light of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico it is imperative for the EU and its Member States urgently to examine all aspects of oil extraction and exploration in the European Union and to take all necessary steps thereafter to ensure that such an environmental catastrophe will not occur in EU waters,

               B.

               whereas the highest levels of precaution, environmental protection and safety and security of oil operations in Europe are the principles of paramount importance which must underpin all EU action in this area,

               C.

               whereas the majority of oil drilling and exploration takes place in the waters of the North Sea,

               D.

               whereas EU waters also border countries that are not part of the European Union, for which EU law does not require compliance with the relevant provisions governing liability and the remedying of damage,

               E.

               whereas efforts are underway to extend oil drilling and exploration into deeper and more remote parts of the sea, which involve greater risks in terms of managing and monitoring operations,

               1.

               Expresses its solidarity with the victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster and calls for technical advice and support to be provided by the EU in response to this disaster;

               2.

               Recognises the significant contribution that offshore oil and gas production in Europe can continue to make to security of supply in the EU, as well as the good safety record of the industry in Europe;

               3.

               Recognises the urgent need to adopt a common European, cross-border oil spill prevention and response system;

               4.

               Urges the Commission to submit a report at the end of the year assessing the level of environmental pollution and the biological state of the Gulf of Mexico;

               5.

               Calls on the Commission to follow closely the results of the investigations by the US authorities into the human, natural and technological factors which led to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, so as to draw all the conclusions necessary to prevent the occurrence of such events on offshore oil platforms in EU maritime and coastal waters;

               6.

               Calls on the Commission to develop rigorous EU-wide accident prevention policies for oil platforms, and to extend the scope of the SEVESO II Directive (5) to oil rigs;

               7.

               Calls on the Commission in particular to review the EU’s capacity for immediate response to accidents involving offshore installations and to develop a European action plan in cooperation with Member States; notes that special attention must be given to the Arctic zone, due to its fragility and its importance in mitigating climate change; moreover notes that the Mediterranean, Baltic and North Sea area has to be taken into consideration;

               8.

               Welcomes the Commission’s ‘stress test’ on oil drillings in EU waters; calls on it to identify any gaps and weaknesses in the regulatory framework at EU level and to make its analysis available to Parliament as early as possible;

               9.

               Calls on the Commission in particular to review the current legislation under which the holders of offshore oil exploitation licences can lease installations to third parties, in order to ensure that liability for damage to human life and the environment caused by accidents and disasters on offshore oil platforms may be more easily established in subsequent civil litigation;

               10.

               Urges the Commission, following its review of the regulatory framework, to present to Parliament as early as possible any legislative proposals it deems necessary to address identified loopholes – for example in the Environmental Liability Directive (6), the SEVESO II Directive and other European legislation – in the regulatory regime applicable to oil extraction and exploration and other forms of seabed exploitation in the EU;

               11.

               Considers that the current environmental liability legislation contains several important gaps and calls therefore on the Commission to consider revising the content and extending the scope of current EU legislation (including the Environmental Liability Directive, the SEVESO II Directive and the measures comprising the Erika and Third Maritime Safety Packages) and/or introducing any necessary new legislation to take into account all risks of off-shore exploitation and strengthen the rules governing liability in the event of oil accidents;

               12.

               Notes the absence of a compensation fund in the case of oil disasters and calls on the Commission to include compulsory financial security provisions under the Environmental Liability Directive;

               13.

               Urges the Commission to lower the damage threshold under the Environmental Liability Directive and to include damages caused to marine waters within its scope;

               14.

               Calls on the Commission, in its current review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (7), to ensure that all seabed activities are subjected to a mandatory assessment, that the quality of EIAs is guaranteed and that hyper-hazardous activities such as seabed drilling are not permitted to proceed where an EIA indicates that risks cannot be satisfactorily mitigated;

               15.

               Considers furthermore that any legislative proposals must ensure a comprehensive legal framework which:

                           —

                           prevents as far as possible potentially hazardous seabed activities from causing damage to the marine and coastal environments;

                           —

                           guarantees that full liability rests with the polluter in relation to any damage caused by such activities, including damage to the terrestrial and marine environments and to the global climate;

                           —

                           secures the protection of European biodiversity in marine and coastal environments;

                           —

                           ensures that, before any economic activity is planned, independent experts conduct an environmental impact assessment;

               16.

               Calls on the Commission to bring forward legislation to ensure that uniformly high safety standards apply across all EU oil platforms and drilling operations by EU and third countries, from the Atlantic Margin to the Black Sea; calls on the Commission and the Member States to work with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), to strengthen international safety and control rules and standards;

               17.

               Urges the Commission to investigate the establishment of an effective system of surveillance to ‘control the controllers’, and calls for the early strengthening of inspection methods and minimum compulsory EU safety rules;

               18.

               Calls on the Commission to ensure that all provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment (8) and Habitats Directives relating to the environmental impact assessment of oil platforms are applied uniformly across the Member States;

               19.

               Considers that the mandate of the European Agency for Maritime Safety (EMSA) should be extended from vessels to offshore installations; calls for the conferral of any such new tasks to be reflected in the EMSA’s budget and staff numbers;

               20.

               Calls on the Commission to publish an annual report prepared in cooperation with Member State authorities and independent experts, that should assess the technical safety and security of installations and offshore oil platforms operating in EU maritime and coastal waters;

               21.

               Believes that it is of the utmost importance that the Commission examine all financial and liability questions associated with offshore exploration in the EU with a view, if necessary, to the introduction of compulsory EU-wide insurance or other appropriate instruments, for example the establishment of a special European fund to be maintained by mandatory contributions from operators of offshore installations; considers that any such instrument must take full account of the responsibility of such operators, ensure that operators have sufficient insurance or other financial guarantees in place to secure restoration and compensation in relation to environmental damage caused, and provide for additional financial guarantees, for example in the form of funds, for restoration and compensation where operators’ financial guarantees are not sufficient;

               22.

               Urges the Commission in particular to consider compulsory EU-wide insurance schemes designed to compensate affected businesses in the event of a spill;

               23.

               Urges the Commission to examine the decommissioning of existing drilling infrastructure, taking due account of existing international and national regulations in this area, and to clarify, if necessary by way of legislation, the responsibility of operators for ensuring safe removal and liability for any environmental damage resulting from the decommissioning of offshore infrastructure and any environmental damage arising from an offshore installation or drilling site after it has been decommissioned;

               24.

               Calls on the Commission to introduce a rigorous and mandatory framework for company disclosure regarding environmental, social and governance practices, and to consider measures to enhance the engagement of institutional investors with companies regarding the investment risks of poor environmental practices;

               25.

               Notes the report by the UK Health and Safety Executive about working conditions in the North Sea, which shows that fatal and major injury rates doubled over the past year; calls on the Commission to investigate these allegations and to take action to ensure high levels of health and safety for those working in offshore drilling;

               26.

               Calls on the Commission to play an active role in ensuring that activities carried out by third countries and oil extraction projects comply as fully as possible with strict environmental standards and to make provision for specific mechanisms to compensate for any damage caused by third-country offshore oil operations that border the EU;

               27.

               Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

      (1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.

      (3)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

      (4)  SEC(2006)0607 and (2006)0621.

      (5)  Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97).

      (6)  Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56).

      (7)  Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended.

      (8)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30).


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2015 in Case E-1/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Commission Directive 2010/26/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery)

text:
               7.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 3/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 15 July 2015
   in Case E-1/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Commission Directive 2010/26/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery)
   (2016/C 3/06)
   In Case E-1/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 76/2013 of 3 May 2013, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 76/2013 of 3 May 2013, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.