title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Supérieure de Justice (High Court of Justice) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 26 June 1997 in the case of Eric Coursier v. Fortis Bank and Martine Coursier, née Bellami (Case C-267/97)

text:
6 . 9 . 97                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 271 / 11
legislation must necessarily be ensured by the Municipality                 gericht Niedersachsen ( Higher Labour Court of Lower
itself, which must proceed to announce the requisite                        Saxony ) of 8 November 1996, which were received at the
tendering procedures, or whether it may also be ensured                     Court Registry on 24 July 1997, for preliminary rulings in
by the concessionaire, to which the relevant powers are                     the cases of Deutsche Post AG v. Elisabeth Sievers ( Case
transferred; finally, if it should be considered that                       C-270/97) and Deutsche Post AG v. Brunhilde Schrage
compliance with that obligation may also be ensured by                      ( Case C-271/97) on the following questions:
the concessionaire, it is necessary to ascertain whether the
latter has the option of choosing whether to manage the
                                                                            1 . ( a ) Does Community law require precedence of
service itself or whether it must necessarily entrust it to
                                                                                application or validity ( under the second
third parties.
                                                                                paragraph of Article 5 and Article 189 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty ) over national provisions of the Member
( 1 ) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, relating to the                     States which could or would be applicable, by way
      coordination of procedures for the award of public service                       of concurrence of claims, to the same factual
      contracts, OJ L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992, p. 1 .
                                                                                situation and with the same aim of supporting
                                                                                claims to equal treatment in occupational pension
                                                                                schemes, as for example in Germany — generally
                                                                                — the employment law principle of equal
                                                                                treatment or — specifically — Paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of
                                                                                the Beschaftigungsforderungsgesetz ( Employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Superieure                              Promotion Law ) 1985 ?
de Justice ( High Court of Justice ) of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 26 June 1997                             ( b ) Does the precedence of Community law in such a
in the case of Eric Coursier v. Fortis Bank and Martine                                conflict, where Community law confers benefits
                         Coursier, nee Bellami                                         under occupational pension schemes only if and in
                           ( Case C-267/97 )                                           so far as they are attributable to periods of
                                                                                employment prior to 17 May 1990, whereas the
                             ( 97/C 271/ 17)                                           national provisions regulate the same factual
                                                                                situation differently in that they do not exclude
                                                                                retroactive effect, apply generally ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour                                     ( c ) Does such precedence exist only if the economic
Superieure de Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                                 objective of Article 119, which exists alongside the
of 26 June 1997, received at the Court Registry on 22 July                             social objective, namely the creation of equal
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eric Coursier                            competitive opportunities, is specifically affected ?
v. Fortis Bank and Martine Coursier, nee Bellami, on the
following question:
                                                                            2 . Does at least the principle, to be regarded as part of
                                                                                Community law, that national law is to be interpreted
Does a judgment delivered in the State of origin in the                          in a Community manner consistent with EC law,
context of a court-supervised liquidation — a matter                             require national provisions on equal treatment with
which is excluded from the scope of the Brussels                                 respect to benefits from occupational pension schemes
Convention — and which is not open to recognition under                          to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the
the national law of the State in which enforcement is                            requirements and limitations ( prohibition of
sought, but which, in the State in which it was given,                           retroactive effect) of Community law ?
confers on one of the parties immunity from execution of
the judgment whose enforcement is sought, affect the
quality of enforceability which, according to the first
paragraph of Article 31 of the Convention, a judgment
must possess in order to be recognized and enforced ?
                                                                            Action brought on 28 July 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                                                                                Case C-272/97 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                                             97/C 271 / 19
Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by orders of that court
of 8 November 1996 in the cases of Deutsche Post AG v.
         ( 1 ) Elisabeth Sievers and (2 ) Brunhilde Schrage                 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                   ( Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 )
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                            Communities on 28 July 1997 by the Commission of the
                               97/C 271 / 18 )                              European Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro
                                                                            and Jiirgen Grunwald, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Gomez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
European Communities by orders of the Landesarbeits                         Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-341/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2016 — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2016 — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping
   (Case C-341/16)
   (2016/C 326/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hanssen Beleggingen BV

      Defendant: Tanja Prast-Knipping

      Question referred

   Does the notion of proceedings which are ‘concerned with the registration or validity of … trade marks’, within the meaning of Article 22.4 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, (1) also cover a claim, brought against the formal proprietor of a Benelux trade mark registered in the Benelux trade mark register, which seeks an order requiring that defendant to make a declaration to the Benelux trade mark office that she has no entitlement to the contested mark and that she waives registration as the proprietor of that mark?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case C-360/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 91/371/EEC - Implementation of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation on direct insurance other than life assurance

text:
20.2.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/9
order to transpose that Directive, the Federal Republic of            Confederation concerning direct insurance other than life
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third          assurance (OJ L 205, 27.7.1991, p. 48) or, in the
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                         alternative, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Article 34(1) of the Directive Ð the Court (Sixth                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                     under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,            composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.
J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P. Jann
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L.
judgment on 16 December 1997, in which it:                            Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                      judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period all the laws and regulations necessary to                 1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                    period the laws, regulations and administrative
     1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public                  provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     supply contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has                 91/371/EEC of 20 June 1991 on the implementation
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34(1) of               of the Agreement between the European Economic
     that Directive;                                                       Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning
                                                                           direct insurance other than life assurance, the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under that Directive;
2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                      2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 18 December 1997
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
       in Case C-360/95: Commission of the European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)                       in   Case    C-361/95: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
Directive 91/371/EEC Ð Implementation of the                          (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
Agreement between the European Economic Community                     Directive 92/49/EEC Ð Direct insurance other than life
and the Swiss Confederation on direct insurance other                                            assurance)
                       than life assurance
                                                                                (98/C 55/16)
                          (98/C 55/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-361/95: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca
In Case C-360/95: Commission of the European                          VilaÂ Costa) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ
Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca                  Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) Ð
VilaÂ Costa) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ               application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and
Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) Ð                    bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,               comply with Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
comply with Council Directive 91/371/EEC of 20 June                   administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
1991 on the implementation of the Agreement between                   than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC
the European Economic Community and the Swiss                         and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)


               19.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/35

         Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-1/15)
   (2015/C 92/09)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare 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, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 18 February 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order 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 referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 February 2005 in Case C-480/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo in criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 22 February 2005
   in Case C-480/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo in criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 182/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-480/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy), made by decision of 2 November 2004, received at the Court on 17 November 2004, in criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 22 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale di Viterbo by decision of 2 November 2004 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005.


title: Case C-486/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 27 November 2006 — BVBA Van Landeghem v Belgian State

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 27 November 2006 — BVBA Van Landeghem v Belgian State
   (Case C-486/06)
   (2007/C 20/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BVBA Van Landeghem

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Question referred

      ‘Should pick-ups — that is to say, motor vehicles consisting, on the one hand, of an enclosed cabin for use as a passenger compartment, there being behind the driver's seat folding or removable seats with three-point safety belts, and, on the other hand, of a load space which is separated from the cabin, is not higher than 50 centimetres, can be opened only at the rear and has no facilities for attaching a load — which were equipped with a highly luxurious, full-option interior (including electrically adjustable seats, leather seats, electrically operated mirrors and windows, a stereo with a CD player, etc.), an ABS braking system, an automatic, 4 to 8-litre, very high fuel-consumption engine, four-wheel drive and luxurious (sports) rims, be classified, if put into circulation and released for home use in the period between 10 April 1995 and 4 December 1997, under heading 87.03 of the then applicable combined nomenclature (originally introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature), as motor cars and other motor vehicles, principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading No 87.02), including motor vehicles of the “station wagon” or “break” type and racing cars, or under heading 87.04 of the then applicable combined nomenclature as motor vehicles for the transport of goods, or under a heading other than headings 87.03 or 87.04 of the then applicable combined nomenclature?’

      (1)  OJ L 256, p. 1.


title: Case C-144/08: Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

         Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-144/08)
   (2008/C 171/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence in order to determine whether the temporary import of certain forms of transport is subject to tax exemptions, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive No 83/182/EEC (1) of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

               —

               order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   For the purpose of determining tax exemptions, Article 7(1) of Directive 83/182/EEC governs normal residence, which determines the Member State under whose rules on temporary imports the vehicle in question falls, and the Member State which is entitled to charge tax on that vehicle. Article 7(1) of Directive 83/182/EEC governs certain exceptions to the rule according to which normal residence means the place where a person usually lives for at least 185 days in each calendar year. In particular, the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) states that if the normal residence of a person whose occupational ties are in a different place from his personal ties and who consequently lives in turn in different places situated in two or more Member States shall be regarded as being the place of his personal ties, provided that such person returns there regularly. However, it is expressly stated that the last condition need not be met where the person is living in a Member State in order to carry out a task of a definite duration.
   However, Finnish legislation imposes a requirement for the person concerned to return to the place of normal residence also in the case where he is living in Finland in order to carry out a task of a definite duration. Therefore, Finland has failed to correctly transpose Article 7(1) of Directive 83/182/EEC into national law.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 105, p. 59.


title: Case C-165/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Cosmia Barberio v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/29

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Cosmia Barberio v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-165/10)
      (2010/C 161/39)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cosmia Barberio

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case T-36/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Athens Resort Casino v Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Athens Resort Casino v Commission
   (Case T-36/12)
   2012/C 80/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marrousi, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis and K. Spyropoulos, lawyers and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, 1.11.2011, p. 25) (hereafter referred to as ‘the contested decision’); or

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision to the extent it applies to the applicant; or

               —

               further in the alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU by determining that the contested decision constituted an aid measure by:

                                       (a)

                                       finding that the applicant benefited from an economic advantage in the form of a ‘fiscal discrimination’ in the amount of 7,20 euros (EUR) per ticket;

                                       (b)

                                       finding that the measure involved forgone State resources;

                                       (c)

                                       considering that the measure was selective in favour of the applicant;

                                       (d)

                                       concluding that the measure distorted competition and had an effect on trade between Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide adequate reasoning to enable the applicant to understand and the General Court to review the reasoning based on which it found that the applicant benefited from a selective advantage, that any such advantage involved forgone State revenues and would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that in the event that the Court finds that incompatible aid had been granted to the applicant, the Court should annul the contested decision, insofar as it orders recovery of amounts from the applicant, since that recovery would violate:

                                       (a)

                                       Article 14(1) first sentence of Regulation 659/1999 (1), pursuant to which recovery shall relate to the aid received by the beneficiary, since the defendant failed to correctly quantify in the contested decision the amount of aid that the applicant may have received;

                                       (b)

                                       Article 14(1) second sentence of Regulation 659/1999, since recovery in this case infringes general principles of EU law, namely: the principle of legitimate expectations; the principle of legal certainty; and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Art. 108) of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1)


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-396/15 (OJ C 283, 28.8.2017)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/23

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-396/15
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 283 of 28 August 2017
      )
   (2017/C 338/26)
   The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-396/15, Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup), should read as follows:

      Order of the General Court of 30 May 2017 — Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)
      (Case T-396/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
      (2017/C 283/74)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: web2get GmbH & Co. KG (Dülmen, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 520/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between web2get GmbH & Co. KG and Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-13/15: Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Media Logistik (PostModern)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/30

      Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Media Logistik (PostModern)
      (Case T-13/15)
      (2015/C 107/39)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Media Logistik GmbH (Dresden, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PostModern’ — Application No 4 276 821

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2014 in Case R 2063/2013-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant and, if applicable, the other party to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-489/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/50

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-489/06)
   (2006/C 326/102)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by rejecting tenders in respect of medical devices bearing the CE certification marking, without, in any event, the competent contracting authorities of Greek hospitals having followed the procedure set out in Directive 93/42/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) of Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 (1) coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and Articles 17 and 18 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 (2) concerning medical devices;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission received a complaint relating to the phenomenon of rejection of medical devices, in the context of calls for competition for supplies to public hospitals in Greece, on grounds relating to the ‘general sufficiency and safety of use’ thereof, notwithstanding their certification with the CE marking, and without, in any event, the procedure provided for in Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices being followed.
   Under Directive 93/36/EEC coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, the tender procedures must be conducted on the basis of the relevant national technical standards implementing European standards, of European technical approvals or of common technical specifications. The Commission considers that, by deciding in the instances at issue that the CE marking did not constitute an appropriate and binding guarantee of the suitability of the products in the tenders, without any of the prescribed exceptions which justify divergence from the directive's provisions being applicable, the Greek contracting authorities infringed the obligations owed by them in that regard under Article 8(2).
   At the same time, the Commission points out an infringement of Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices, which lays down specific and exclusive procedures for certifying such devices and placing them on the market, as well as for contesting their suitability. The information available to the Commission reveals continual breach, by the competent Greek authorities which have rejected tenders, of the legal procedures for checking the suitability of medical devices. None of the stages of the procedure provided for in Article 18 of the directive was observed where the correctness of certification — pursuant to Article 17 of the directive — with the CE marking was disputed.
   Also, in the Commission's submission, the Greek authorities' claim that the measures which they have taken to eliminate the abovementioned phenomenon are sufficient is contradicted by the very facts and, in any event, in accordance with the Court of Justice's case-law, the existence of national procedures which are designed to deal with every infringement relating to public procurement does not justify infringement of the relevant Community rules by the Member State.
   The Commission considers therefore that the Hellenic Republic has infringed its obligations under Directive 93/36/EEC, in particular Article 8(2), and under Directive 93/42/EEC, in particular Articles 17 and 18.

      (1)  OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ No L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.


title: Case T-261/09 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F-5/05, Violetti and Others v Commission, and F-7/05, Schmit v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/35

         Appeal brought on 6 July 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F-5/05, Violetti and Others v Commission, and F-7/05, Schmit v Commission
   (Case T-261/09 P)
   2009/C 220/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Antonello Violetti (Cittiglio, Italy), Nadine Schmit (Ispra, Italy), Council of the European Union, Anna Bassi Perucchini (Reno di Leggiuno, Italy), Marco Basso (Varano Borghi, Italy), Ernesto Brognieri (Barasso, Italy), Sergio Brusorio (Sesto Calende, Italy), Natale Cao (Ispra), Renato Cazzaniga (Ispra), Elvidio Flammini (Varese, Italy), Luigi Magistri (Ispra), Reginella Molinari Canale (Ispra), Giuseppe Morelli (Besozzo, Italy), Nadia Valentini (Varese) and Giuseppe Zara (Ispra)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F-5/05 and F-7/05 Violetti and Others v Commission, in so far as it declared admissible the actions for annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to communicate certain information to the Italian authorities;

               —

               adjudicate the present cases itself, declaring the actions brought before the Civil Service Tribunal to be inadmissible;

               —

               order the respondents to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the Commission seeks to have set aside the judgment of 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F-5/05 and F-7/05 Violetti and Others v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal annulled OLAF’s decision to communicate information concerning the respondents to the Italian judicial authorities and ordered the Commission to pay each of the respondents the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of damages.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 90a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal was in breach of Community law and proceeded on the basis of unsound grounds in disregarding the established case-law to the effect that actes préparatoires — such as the opening of an OLAF investigation, OLAF’s final report and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings — are not acts which have adverse effects for the purposes of providing grounds of complaint. The Commission argues that this case-law can be transposed to Article 90a of the Staff Regulations as regards the possibility of submitting a complaint against acts of OLAF.


title: Case T-403/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar (BRIGHTON) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark BRIGHTON — National word and figurative marks BRIGHTON and earlier signs BRIGHTON — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar (BRIGHTON)
   (Case T-403/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark ‘BRIGHTON’ - National word and figurative marks ‘BRIGHTON’ and earlier signs ‘BRIGHTON’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 331/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (Dover, Delaware, USA) (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Felmar (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Monégier du Sorbier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning an opposition procedure between Brighton Collectibles Inc. and Felmar.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Brighton Collectibles Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Felmar to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-252/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Sungro v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/49

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Sungro v Council and Commission
   (Case T-252/07)
   (2007/C 211/90)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Sungro, S.A. (Córdoba, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of thirty seven thousand one hundred and eighty-eight euros (EUR 37 188);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put forward in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Action brought on 13 May 1996 by John Mellett against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-66/96)

text:
No C 233/ 10          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 8 . 96
organizations to which they belong, their task necessarily          The applicant submits that this decision was adopted in
entails an appropriate financial arrangement . Thus the fact        breach of the essential procedural requirements set out in
that members of the ESC continue to go without such an              Article 25 of the Staff Regulations . It infringes general rules
arrangement is incompatible with the nature of the task             of law relating to the application of the Treaty establishing
assigned to them by the Treaty, since it inherently                 the European Community, namely the principles of equal
presupposes that all members of the ESC are paid for those          treatment, the protection of legitimate expectations and the
services by organizations in their respective countries and         prohibition of retroactive withdrawal of a legal measure
that they are therefore in practice obliged , in the                which confers individual rights . The decision was also
performance of their ESC duties, to act in the interests and at     adopted without taking the applicant's rights and legitimate
the behest of those organizations .                                 interests into account .
The applicant also alleges : ( a ) breach of the principle of
equal treatment as between the various European
appointments; ( b ) breach of the principle that allowances
should compensate time devoted to the performance of
duties and the quality and quantity of work undertaken , and
not merely ( and, above all, not partially ) actual expenses        Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Sonja Edith Berlingieri
incurred .
                                                                    Vinzek against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-71 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/20 )
Action brought on 13 May 1996 by John Mellett against the
      Court of Justice of the European Communities                                  (Language of the case: French)
                        Case T-66/96 )
                        ( 96/C 233/ 19 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of tbe case: Englisb)                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1 996 by
                                                                    Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek, residing at Sterrebeek
An action against the Commission of the European                    ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis , Thierry
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels Bar, with
Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1996 by              an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
John Mellett, represented by Brendan O'Donovan, with an             Fiduciaire Myson , Sari, 1 Rue Glesener .
address for service in Luxembourg at 61 , rue des
Maraîchers, Plateau du Kirchberg.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                        COM/A/955 of 28 March 1996 not to admit her to the
— annul the decision of the Administrative Committee of
    the Court of Justice of the European Communities of                 oral test in the competition,
    14 June 1995 not to commence the procedure leading to
    the establishment of Mr Mellett as a permanent official ,       — annul , in so far as necessary, the decision of the selection
    and                                                                 board in competition COM/A/955 of 16 February 1996
                                                                        not to admit her to the oral test in the competition,
— order the       defendant to     bear the   costs  of these
    proceedings .                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, who , as personal driver of one of its
Members, is a member of the temporary staff of the Court of         The applicant states that she obtained her veterinary degree
Justice challenges the refusal to commence a procedure              at the University of Pisa ( Italy ) in 1974 and that, since
leading to his appointment as permanent official .                  September 1974, she has been working as an independent
                                                                    consultant in various areas, and especially in the technical
The applicant states that according to a well-established           and administrative areas and in the area of veterinary
practice of the defendant institution, drivers are first            legislation . On 4 October 1995 , the Commission published
recruited as temporary officials attached to the Chambers of        the notice of open competition COM/A/955 with a view to
a Member . After three years' service, the Member would             the recruitment of principal administrators ( A4/A5 ) of
propose that a procedure leading to the establishment of the        Austrian nationality . The applicant lodged her candidature
driver as a permanent official be set in motion . An internal       within the prescribed time-limit . By letter of 16 February
competition would then be organized by the Court's                  1996 , she was informed that she had not been admitted to
administration, which would invariably lead to the driver           the oral test in the competition . Following a request by the
being established . The contested decision has departed from        applicant that the decision be re-examined, the selection
this practice .                                                     board confirmed its decision by letter of 26 March 1996 .


title: Case T-250/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 –Batchelor v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents exchanged in the course of the assessment of the compatibility with Community law of measures taken with respect to television broadcasting activities — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 –Batchelor v Commission
   (Case T-250/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents exchanged in the course of the assessment of the compatibility with Community law of measures taken with respect to television broadcasting activities - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)
   2011/C 204/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister, and D. Reymond, lawyer, and subsequently by A. Barav, D. Reymond and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Docksey, C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents, and subsequently by C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh and S. Juul Jørgensen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, L. Seeboruth and I. Rao, Agents, and subsequently by I. Rao, and G. Facenna and T. de la Mare, Barristers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Commission of 16 May 2008, refusing access to certain documents exchanged in the course of the assessment of the compatibility with Community law of measures adopted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the basis of Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), and for annulment of the implied decision refusing that access, deemed to have been taken on 9 April 2008

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action against the implied decision of refusal deemed to have been adopted on 9 April 2008;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Commission of 16 May 2008, except in so far as it concerns the information contained in the first two annexes to the letter of 19 February 2007, in respect of which the exception provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of 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 has been invoked;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edward William Batchelor;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Batchelor as a result of its intervention;

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-877/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Verschuur v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/34

         Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Verschuur v Commission
   (Case T-877/16)
   (2017/C 053/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Steven Verschuur (Baarn, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 3 October 2016, C(2016) 6455 final, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application (1) for access to documents under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2) (GESTDEM 2015/3732); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 related to the protection of the purpose of investigations, thereby also committing a manifest error of fact.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 related to the protection of the Commission’s decision making process, thereby also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, related to the protection of the commercial interests of a legal person, and Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, related to the institution’s obligation to grant partial access when only parts of a document are covered by one or more exceptions, thereby also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

      (1)  Application for access to some documents related to the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 in case SA.38374, State aid implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann (VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a soloist)

text:
24.5.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 124/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    The heading of Article 13A of that directive does not, of itself,
                                                                                entail restrictions on the possibilities of exemption provided for
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                           by that provision.
                           of 3 April 2003                                    (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
       the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann ( 1)
(VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a
                                soloist)                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 124/01)                                                                of 3 April 2003
                   (Language of the case: German)                             in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
                    in the European Court Reports)                            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu-
                                                                                beheer (1)
                                                                              (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
In Case C-144/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                       stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                  use of incineration residues as raw material in cement
Matthias Hoffmann, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(n)                 manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                      a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                       pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court
                                                                                (2003/C 124/02)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Article 13A(1)(n) of the 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                In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be               EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
      interpreted to the effect that the expression ‘other [recognised]       in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
      cultural bodies’ does not exclude soloists performing individu-         EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
      ally.                                                                   BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening


title: Case T-322/10: Order of the General Court of 18 February 2013 — Clasado v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/37

         Order of the General Court of 18 February 2013 — Clasado v Commission
   (Case T-322/10) (1)

   2013/C 108/87
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2000 in Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98: Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) v the Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — European Regional Development Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Failure to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
C 102/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.4.2000
4. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the             3. Rules that there is no need to adjudicate in Case T-151/98;
     Netherlands Antilles Government in both cases;
                                                                           4. Orders the Commission to bear all the costs.
5. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs in both cases.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998 and C 358 of 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998 and C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 1 February 2000
                        of 3 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV and Marco Ooms
in Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98: Council of Euro-                            v Commission of the European Communities (1)
pean Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) v the Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements —
                                                                           Application of Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 — Exemption)
(Action for annulment — European Regional Development
Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Failure to state
    reasons — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)                                            (2000/C 102/44)
                          (2000/C 102/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)                        In Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV, established in
                                                                           Maastricht, Netherlands and Marco Ooms, of Terneuzen,
                                                                           Netherlands, represented by M. J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam
Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98, Council of European                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), an association formed                   Chambers of Fernand Entringer, 34A Rue Philippe II v
under French law, established in Paris, represented by Daniel              Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Lugard
M. Tomasevic and Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an             and L. Pignataro) — application for the annulment of the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                 Commission’s decision of 13 February 1998 refusing to grant
Manhaeve, 56-58, Rue Charles Martel, against Commission of                 the applicants, in respect of the vessel Durance, an exemption
the European Communities, (Agent: Peter Oliver) — appli-                   under Article 8(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89
cation for the annulment of the Commission’s decision                      of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland
reducing the financial assistance granted to the applicant by              waterway transport (OJ 1989 L 116, p. 25) — the Court of
the European Regional Development Fund for the European                    First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,
City Cooperation System Programme — the Court of First                     President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber),                     J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and                     a judgment on 1 February 2000, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar
has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
1. Annuls the Commission decision contained in Debit Note
     No 970004505 F relating to the European City Cooperation              2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
     System Project No 91/00/29/003, issued in December 1997                    incurred by the Commission jointly and severally.
     and amended on 15 July 1998, in so far as it concerns the
     refusal of cofinancing in respect of expenditure declared by the
     Commission to be ineligible, with the exception of expenditure
                                                                           (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
     connected with the Strasbourg General Assembly in the amounts
     of ECU 101 598 and ECU 256 882;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-46/98;


title: Case C-507/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Partial write-off of a company’s tax liability as part of an arrangement with creditors — Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Failure to execute)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-507/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Partial write-off of a company’s tax liability as part of an arrangement with creditors - Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Failure to execute)
   2011/C 63/03
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, J. Javorský and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 [notified under number C(2006) 2082], which found that aid granted by the Slovak Republic in favour of Frucona Košice in the form of a write-off of a tax debt by the tax office under an arrangement with creditors was incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery (State Aid No C-25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 01.05.2009.


title: Case T-237/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Patrick Reynolds v European Parliament (Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Article 38 of the Staff Regulations — Political group — Early termination of secondment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectation — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Misuse of powers — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Setting aside in part of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Res judicata)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Patrick Reynolds v European Parliament
   (Case T-237/00) (1)

   (Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Article 38 of the Staff Regulations - Political group - Early termination of secondment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectation - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Misuse of powers - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Setting aside in part of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Res judicata)
   (2006/C 48/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Patrick Reynolds (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: P. Legros and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   first, annulment of the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General of the Parliament terminating the applicant's secondment in the interests of the service to the political group ‘Europe of Democracies and Diversities’ and reinstating him in the Directorate-General for Information and Public relations and, second, compensation for the harm sustained by the applicant owing to the adoption of that decision by the defendant and to the actions of the political group and of certain of its members
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General of the Parliament terminating the applicant's secondment in the interests of the service to the EDD political group and reinstating him in the Directorate-General for Information and Public Relations in so far as that decision is applicable between 15 July 2000 and 24 July 2000;

               2)

               Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant a sum corresponding to the difference between the remuneration which he should have received as an official in Grade A 2, Step 1, and that which he received following his reinstatement in Grade LA 5, Step 3, for the period 15 to 24 July 2000, plus default interest at the rate of 5.25 % per annum from the date on which the amounts making up that sum were payable until such date as payment is actually made. The rate of interest to be applied is calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two percentage points;

               3)

               Declares the action for compensation inadmissible in so far as it relates to reparation for the harm caused by conduct not entailing a decision on the part of the EDD Group and of certain of its members;

               4)

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               5)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs pertaining to all the proceedings referred to in paragraph 213 above.

      (1)  OJ C302 of 21. 10. 2000.


title: Case C-203/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Billerud Karlsborg Aktiebolag, Billerud Skärblacka Aktiebolag v Naturvårdsverket

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Billerud Karlsborg Aktiebolag, Billerud Skärblacka Aktiebolag v Naturvårdsverket
   (Case C-203/12)
   2012/C 184/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: 1. Billerud Karlsborg Aktiebolag, 2. Billerud Skärblacka Aktiebolag

      Defendant: Naturvårdsverket

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 16(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87 (1) mean that an operator who has not surrendered a sufficient number of emission allowances by 30 April must pay a penalty regardless of the cause of the omission, for example, where, although the operator had a sufficient number of emission allowances on 30 April, as a result of an oversight, an administrative error or a technical problem it did not surrender them then?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 16(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87 mean that the penalty will or may be waived or reduced for example in the circumstances described in Question 1?

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-398/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 7(1)(b) and 63 — Word mark Vorsprung durch Technik — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application for a trade mark in respect of a large number of goods and services — Relevant public — Global assessment and reasoning — New documents)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-398/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 7(1)(b) and 63 - Word mark Vorsprung durch Technik - Marks consisting of advertising slogans - Distinctive character - Application for a trade mark in respect of a large number of goods and services - Relevant public - Global assessment and reasoning - New documents)
   2010/C 63/15
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Audi AG (represented by: S.O. Gillert and F. Schiwek, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 9 July 2008 in Case T-70/06 Audi v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 dismissing in part the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing registration of the word mark ‘VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25, 28, 37 to 40 and 42 — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific assessment criteria — Insufficient reasons stated as regards how the relevant public was determined — Consideration of pleas submitted for the first time in the procedure before the Court of First Instance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of 9 July 2008 in Case T-70/06 Audi v OHIM (Vorsprung durch Technik), in so far as the Court of First Instance of the European Communities held that the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) had not infringed Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3288/94 of 22 December 1994, in adopting its decision of 16 December 2005 (Case R 237/2005-2);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2005 (Case R 237/2005-2) in so far as, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 as amended by Regulation No 3288/94, that decision refused in part the application for registration of the mark Vorsprung durch Technik;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-118/03: Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 146/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
With regard to this last point, the applicant states that the               Pleas in law and main arguments
right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against him
cannot be neutralised by the protection of public interest as
regards public security and international relations. Considering            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
all the damages suffered by the applicant, the balance of                   munity trade mark:
interest is in his favour.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘NLSPORT’ —
                                                                            sought:                      Application No 816 512 for
( 1) Not published in the OJ yet.                                                                        goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
( 2) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)                                       and 25.
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Naulover S.A.
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
     L 295 of 30.10.2001, p. 12).                                           sign cited in the oppo-
( 3) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive         sition proceedings:
     measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
     to combating terrorism (OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 70).                Mark or sign cited in        Community            trade      mark
( 4) Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May        opposition:                  No 13417, consisting in an N
     2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
                                                                                superposed on an L, both in
     and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
                                                                                English characters.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the opposition.
                                                                            sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition.
Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited                          Pleas in law:                Incorrect         application      of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                       No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
                          (Case T-117/03)
                          (2003/C 146/72)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
                                                                            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                          (Case T-118/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by                                                (2003/C 146/73)
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
       Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R95/2002-1, and                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—      Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the           4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
       costs arising from the proceedings and from Case No 95/              in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
       2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.                     R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
      Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 577/2002-1, and
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
—     Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the                Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 578/2002-1, and
      costs arising from the proceedings and from Case 577/
      2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.
                                                                          —     Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the
                                                                                costs arising from the proceedings and from Case 578/
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.
Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘NLJEANS’ —
sought:                       Application No 816.454 for
                              goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
                              and 25.                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Proprietor of mark or         Naulover S.A.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                       Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
Mark or sign cited in         Community figurative mark
opposition:                   No 13417, consisting in an N
                              superposed on an L, both in
                              English characters.                         Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘NLACTIVE’ —
                                                                          sought:                      Application No 816.629 for
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the opposition.                                               goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
sition Division:                                                                                and 25.
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                          Proprietor of mark or        Naulover S.A.
                              ance of the opposition.
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
Pleas in law:                 Incorrect       application       of        sition proceedings:
                              Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                              No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                              fusion).                                    Mark or sign cited in        Community          trade      mark
                                                                          opposition:                  No 13417, consisting in an N
                                                                                superposed on an L, both in
                                                                                English characters.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the opposition.
Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited                        sition Division:
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                        (Case T-119/03)
                                                                          Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition.
                        (2003/C 146/74)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Pleas in law:                Incorrect       application      of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.


title: Case T-199/16: Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/26

         Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
   (Case T-199/16)
   (2016/C 232/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission.

               2.

               Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time.

               3.

               Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).


title: Case C-159/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/21

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-159/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 326/42)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, F. Simonetti and K. Nyberg, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement within the prescribed period, with regard to the autonomous province of Åland, 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 2001 L 197, p. 30)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, the Republic of Finland has failed, with regard to the autonomous region of the Åland islands, to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 03.06.2006.


title: Case T-399/16: Action brought on 25 July 2016 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/10

         Action brought on 25 July 2016 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission
   (Case T-399/16)
   (2016/C 371/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Wessely and O. Brouwer, lawyers, and A. Woods, J. Aitken and M. Davis, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2016, C (2016) 2796 in case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK Investments Limited/Telefónica (Europe plc), notified to Hutchison on 13 May 2016 declaring the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc by Hutchison incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 in its entirety; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those related to any potential intervener.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, and infringement of essential procedural requirements in the interpretation and application of the legal test for the assessment of horizontal non-coordinated effects in the market for retail mobile telecommunications services in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred with respect to the qualification of the applicant as an ‘important competitive force’ and in assessing closeness of competition. The Commission also committed manifest errors of assessment in the analysis of the predicted price effects and likely incentives of the merged entity following the Concentration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and distortion of the evidence with respect to the analysis of the counterfactual scenario. In particular: the Commission failed to assess Hutchison’s network capacity relative to that of its competitors and impermissibly relies on the alleged ability of Hutchison to adopt ‘demand management’ initiatives, such as increasing prices, as a reason for rejecting Hutchison’s evidence concerning future network capacity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact, errors of law, manifest errors of assessment and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising from network sharing. In particular: the Commission has erred in relation to its novel propositions concerning the necessity and extent of ‘alignment’ between competitors in network sharing agreements; and the Commission has committed an error of law and manifest errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on potential harm to competitors of the merged entity rather than competition. The Commission committed further errors in rejecting Commitments offered by Hutchison that would have fully resolved all of its concerns relating to network sharing.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, errors of law and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising in the wholesale market for access and call origination on public mobile networks in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred in concluding that Hutchison is an ‘important competitive force’ in the wholesale market despite having a very small market share (less than 3 %); and in basing its conclusions on the opinions of third parties instead of conducting its own analysis.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, lack of reasoning and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to the evaluation of the Commitments offered by Hutchison in respect of concerns relating to the retail and wholesale mobile telecommunications markets in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission incorrectly objected to the proposed Commitments alleging uncertainty of their implementation; the Commission has manifestly erred in its assessment of the ability of new and strengthened competitors to compete effectively on the basis of the proposed Commitments; and the Commission erred in its assessment of the overall suitability of the proposed Commitments to offset the loss of competition alleged in the decision.