title: Case C-79/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 13 and 132 — Bodies governed by public law — Capacity as public authorities — Activities — Treatment as non-taxable persons — Exemptions — Socio-cultural, health and education sectors — ‘Euroregions’ — Promotion of work mobility — Making available of personnel — Burden of proof)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-79/09) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 13 and 132 - Bodies governed by public law - Capacity as public authorities - Activities - Treatment as non-taxable persons - Exemptions - Socio-cultural, health and education sectors - ‘Euroregions’ - Promotion of work mobility - Making available of personnel - Burden of proof)
   2010/C 134/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, D.J.M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(1)(c), 13, 24(1) and 132 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Making available of personnel in the health, education and socio-cultural sectors — Promotion of work mobility — Euroregion

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129 of 6.6.2006.


title: Case C-603/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-139/14: PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/32

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-139/14: PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council
   (Case C-603/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia, PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-139/14, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicants to pay the Council's respective costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the cases back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Indonesian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Indonesia as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicants is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment admitted by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicants’ sixth plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicants at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Case C-303/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 June 2010 — Administración General del Estado v Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (RENFE)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 June 2010 — Administración General del Estado v Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (RENFE)
   (Case C-303/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/37
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Administración General del Estado

      Respondent: Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (RENFE)

      Question referred

   Must the phrase ‘in the field of passenger transport, and the carriage of goods, by rail’ as used in Article 8(2)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, for the purposes of defining the exemption which the Member States may provide in that field, be interpreted strictly, in accordance with its literal meaning, or, conversely, must it be interpreted broadly, as meaning that the exemption extends to fuel used by machinery for the maintenance of the railway infrastructure, which moves by rail?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-359/98 P: Ca' Pasta Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community financial aid — Procedure for discontinuing the aid — Suspension of payment of the aid originally granted — Actionable measure)

text:
26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 247/3
Communities (Agent: T. Millett) and Council of the European                D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Union (Agents: M. Bauer and D. Canga Fano) — Appeal against                Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
the order of the Court of First Instance of the European                   M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
Communities (Third Chamber) of 20 January 1998, Kögler v                   eral; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Court of Justice (T-160/96, [1998] ECR I-A-15 and II-35),                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:
seeking to have that order annulled — the Court of First
Instance of the European communities (Fourth Chamber),                     1.    Declares that:
composed of D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber and
A. La Pergola and H. Rangemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; H. von                      —     by excluding, without proper justification, from the scope
Holstein, Deputy Registrar and subsequently R. Grass, Regis-                           of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975
trar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:                                concerning the quality of bathing water numerous inland
                                                                                bathing areas, and
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                —     by not adopting, within 10 years following notification of
2.    Orders M. Kögler to pay the costs;                                               the directive, the measures needed to ensure that the
                                                                                quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values fixed
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own the                     in accordance with Article 3 of that directive and by not
      costs.                                                                           attaining the results prescribed by it,
                                                                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                        under Article 4(1) of the directive;
                                                                           2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 25 May 2000
in Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
           76/160/EEC — Quality of bathing water)                                                     of 25 May 2000
                          (2000/C 247/04)                                  in Case C-359/98 P: Ca’ Pasta Srl v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community
                                                                           financial aid — Procedure for discontinuing the aid —
                                                                           Suspension of payment of the aid originally granted —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             Actionable measure)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/05)
In Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. de Sousa Fialho and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Kingdom
of Belgium (Agents: initially J. Devadder, then Y. Houyet) —
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water
conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3
of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 con-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
cerning the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1)                                      in the European Court Reports)
within 10 years following the notification of that directive, the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under              In Case C-359/98 P: Ca’ Pasta Srl, established in Padua, Italy,
Article 4 of Directive 76/160/EEC and the third paragraph of               represented by P. Piva, of the Venice Bar, and G. Arendt, of the
Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Article 249 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  at the Chambers of G. Arendt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix — appeal
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/4                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.8.2000
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European              U. Leanza, assisted by D. del Gaizo — application for a
Communities (Third Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case                           declaration that
T-274/97 Ca’ Pasta v Commission [1998] ECR II-2925,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to                      —    by requiring family members of beneficiaries of Council
the proceedings being the Commission of the European                               Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of
Communities — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:                             residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) to have resources one
R. Schintgen, President of Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris                       third higher in amount than the minimum required for
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                       family members of beneficiaries of Council Directive
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:                       90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence
                                                                                for employees and self-employed persons who have
1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 16 July               ceased their occupational activity (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28);
      1998 in Case T-274/97 Ca’ Pasta v Commission;
                                                                              —    by limiting the types of proof which may be submitted
                                                                                and, in particular, by providing that certain documents
2.    Annuls the implied decision suspending Community aid con-                    must be issued or certified by the authorities of another
      tained in the Commission’s letter of 4 August 1997 to Ca’                    Member State; and
      Pasta Srl;
                                                                              —    by requiring students who are citizens of other Member
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay                     States and who are requesting recognition of their right
      the costs, including the costs at first instance.                            of residence in Italy pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                                93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence
                                                                                for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) and members of their
                                                                                family to guarantee to the Italian authorities that they
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                                have resources of a certain amount and, as regards the
                                                                                means to be used for that purpose, not clearly leaving the
                                                                                student a choice between making a declaration and such
                                                                                alternative means as are at least equivalent, and by not
                                                                                allowing the declaration to be used where the student is
                                                                                accompanied by members of his family,
                                                                              the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              those directives
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
                                                                              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kap-
                                                                              teyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Col-
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                   omer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                              judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:
                            of 25 May 2000                                    1.   Declares that
                                                                                —     by limiting the means of proof that may be relied upon,
in Case C-424/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                    and in particular by providing that certain documents
                       ties v Italian Republic (1)                                       must be issued or certified by the authority of a Member
                                                                                State, and
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Right                       —     by, first, requiring students who are nationals of other
of residence — Directives 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and                                     Member States and who are seeking recognition of their
           93/96/EEC — Conditions as to resources)                                       and their families’ right of residence in Italy pursuant to
                                                                                Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on
                                                                                the right of residence for students to guarantee to the
                            (2000/C 247/06)
                                                                                Italian authorities that they have resources of a specific
                                                                                amount; secondly, as regards the means to be used for
                                                                                that purpose, by not clearly leaving such students the
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                                    choice between a declaration and such alternative means
                                                                                as are at least equivalent; and, finally, by not allowing the
                                                                                use of a declaration where a student is accompanied by
                                                                                members of his family,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right
                                                                                of residence, Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990
In Case C-424/98: Commission of the European Communities                           on the right of residence for employees and self-employed
(Agents: initially A. Aresu, of its Legal Service, and sub-                        persons who have ceased their occupational activity, and
sequently K. Oldfelt Hjertonsson) v Italian Republic (Agent:                       Directive 93/96;


title: Case T-278/09: Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Verband Deutscher Prädikats- und Qualitätsweingüter v OHIM (GG)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/39

         Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Verband Deutscher Prädikats- und Qualitätsweingüter v OHIM (GG)
   (Case T-278/09)
   2009/C 220/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verband Deutscher Prädikats- und Qualitätsweingüter eV (Gau-Algesheim, Germany) (represented by N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1568/2008-1);

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘GG’ for goods in Class 33 (registration application No 6 388 284)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 due to a lack of reasons on which the decision was based and of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since the trade mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character and there is no need for it to be allowed to remain available.

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


title: Case C-159/03 P: Appeal brought on 7 April 2003 by Jan Pflugradt against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February 2003 in Case T-83/02, Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank

text:
7.6.2003                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 135/17
That national of a non-Member State may not be required to                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
show any independent reason for entering into and residing in
the territory. His right, as a matter of Community law, is                    1.    Declare that, by including in the invitation to bid in
derived from the right enjoyed by the Community national in                         various tender procedures organised by the Instituto
such a way that to impose on that person prior formalities                          Nacional de la Salud para la prestación de servicios de
concerning entry into national territory constitutes not only a                     terapias respiratorias domiciliarias criteria for admission,
restriction on his (derived) right but also a restriction on the                    assessment and selection which require bidders to have,
principal right of the Community national.                                          at the time of submitting the bid, certain installations on
                                                                                Spanish territory, or within a radius of 1 000 kilometres
                                                                                thereof, and, prior to that, public information offices in
The Commission at the same time emphasises that, in con-                            specific locations, or that they should at the time be
formity with the general system of the Community rules on                           providing the same kind of service, the Kingdom of Spain
the issue of residence permits and, with particular regard to                       has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 49
Article 5 of Directive 64/221, the Member State must adopt                          EC;
the decision concerning the residence permit as soon as
possible and in any event not later than six months of the date               2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
of the application, it being understood that this maximum
period of six months is to be taken into account only in
cases where examination of the application is interrupted on
grounds of public policy.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Directive 68/360 of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of
     restrictions on movement and residence within the Community              The Commission takes the view that the invitations to bid
     for workers of Member State and their families (OJ, English Special      relating to the tender procedures which are the subject of these
     Edition 1968 (I), p. 485).                                               proceedings are discriminatory inasmuch as they are not
( 2) Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of                  justified by any overriding reason relating to the public interest
     restrictions on movement and residence within the Community
     for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and
                                                                              nor do they observe the principle of proportionality.
     the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14).
( 3) Council Directive 90/365 of 28 June 1990 on the right of
     residence for employees and self-employed persons who have
     ceased their occupational activity (OJ 1990 L 180 p. 28).
( 4) Directive 64/221/EEC of the Council of 25 February 1964 on the
     coordination of special measures concerning the movement and
     residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     public policy, public security or public health (OJ English Special
     Edition (1963-1964) I, p. 117).
                                                                              Appeal brought on 7 April 2003 by Jan Pflugradt against
                                                                              the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                              Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February 2003 in
                                                                                Case T-83/02, Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank
                                                                                (Case C-159/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/25)
Action brought on 7 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-158/03)                                    An appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                              the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February
                                                                              2003 in Case T-83/02, Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank,
                           (2003/C 135/24)                                    was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                              Communities on 7 April 2003 by Jan Pflugradt, represented
                                                                              by Dr Norbert Pflüger, 44 Kaiserstrasse, D-60329 Frankfurt
                                                                              am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           The appellant claims that the Court, at the same time as it sets
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Klaus Wiedner, of                  aside the order appealed against, should:
its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.                                                                1.    Declare the action admissible;
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/18                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            7.6.2003
2.    Annul the respondent ECB’s formal warning of 28 Febru-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission de
      ary 2002;                                                            Conciliation et d’Expertise Douaniere (France) by decision
                                                                           of that Court of 18 March 2003 in the case of Customs
                                                                               against CAFOM and SAMSUNG Electronics France
3.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-161/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 135/26)
The Court of First Instance of the European Communities
failed to recognise that the contested measure is an act
adversely affecting the person concerned against which an
action lies under Article 42(1) of the Conditions of Employ-
ment for staff of the ECB.                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Commission de
                                                                           Conciliation et d’Expertise Douaniere (Customs Arbitration
                                                                           and Advisory Committee) (France) of 18 March 2003, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 8 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
Contrary to the findings of the order under appeal the                     in the case of Customs against CAFOM and SAMSUNG
contested measure is not merely a preparatory act in a multi-              Electronics France on the following questions:
stage procedure which may culminate in dismissal. Rather it is
a direct and immediate infringement (a) of the general right to
protection of personality and (b) of the applicant’s right to
protection of data.                                                        1.    Is Article 27 of Protocol 4 annexed to the EC/Hungary
                                                                                Agreement of 13 March 1993 to be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that the authorities of the importing State must
(a)   First the applicant’s general right to protection of person-               apply the preferential arrangement established by that
      ality is directly and immediately affected because the ECB                 Agreement when the authorities of the exporting State,
      did not confront the applicant at the appropriate time                     to whom they have addressed queries concerning specific
      with the allegations which formed the subject-matter of                    facts on which the granting of the arrangement depends,
      a reproach. The applicant was thus precluded from                          merely declare that the products to which the certificates
      responding to the allegations and obtaining immediate                      of origin which they have issued relate fulfil the conditions
      clarification in regard to them. Secondly, the reproach is                 for granting the arrangement?
      said to be based on inaccurate factual assertions, thus
      constituting a direct and immediate infringement of the
      general right to protection of personality.
                                                                           2.    Is a reply furnished by the authorities of the exporting
                                                                                State after the expiry of the 10-month period referred to
                                                                                in Article 27(7) of the [Protocol] to be taken into account
(b)   In the contested order the Court of First Instance failed to               in determining whether the goods in question qualify for
      recognise the direct and immediate infringement of the                     the preferential arrangement?
      applicant’s right to data protection. The applicant’s right
      to be informed, prior to collection of personal data
      concerning him, of the purpose pursued thereby was
      infringed by the contested act.                                      3.    May it be inferred from Article 27(2) of the [Protocol]
                                                                                that, if the request for verification is made by the
                                                                                authorities of the importing State more than two years
                                                                                after the disputed operations, the fact that the authorities
                                                                                of the exporting State are unable to carry out that
In particular, the Court of First Instance failed to recognise that              investigation since they have not kept the necessary
that infringement is not remedied even where at the end of the                   documents must mean that the goods qualify for the
procedure under Article 2.2.5 of the ECB Staff Rules it is                       preferential arrangement?
decided not to proceed with dismissal.


title: Case T-209/07: Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Gaedertz v OHIM — Living Byte Software (GlobalRemote)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/38

         Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Gaedertz v OHIM — Living Byte Software (GlobalRemote)
   (Case T-209/07)
   (2007/C 183/73)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Johann-Christoph Gaedertz (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E. M. Gerstenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Living Byte Software GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 April 2007 in Case R 272/2005-4;

               —

               Declare Community trade mark No 1 466 499 ‘GlobalRemote’ invalid;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘GlobalRemote’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 466 499).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Living Byte Software GmbH.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: In particular, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since the Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought is devoid of the necessary distinctive character and is of a purely descriptive nature.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005 in Case T-25/03, Marco de Stefano v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Open competition — Non-admission to tests — Required diplomas)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 May 2005
   in Case T-25/03, Marco de Stefano v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Community officials - Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Required diplomas)
   (2005/C 171/24)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-25/03, Marco de Stefano, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and G. Verbrugge, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Lozano Palacios, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the selection board's decision of 8 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's candidature in competition EUR/A/166/01, held for the purpose of constituting a reserve for recruitment of A7/A6 administrators in the area of auditing and, in the alternative, a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; M. I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May 2005, in which it:

               1

               Dismisses the action.

               2

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003


title: Case T-377/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Mövenpick v OHIM (PASSIONATELY SWISS) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Geographical indication of origin — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Mövenpick v OHIM (PASSIONATELY SWISS)
   (Case T-377/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Geographical indication of origin - Lack of distinctive character)
   2012/C 32/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mövenpick-Holding (Cham, Swizerland) (represented by: M. Taxhet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1457/2008-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mövenpick Holding to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-163/99: Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Portuguese Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/13
Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Portuguese                           — The applicable system of landing taxes at Portuguese
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-                          airports is not discriminatory or the ground of the
                                ties                                          nationality of users: the differentiation between domestic
                                                                              and international traffic does not infringe Article 12 EC (ex
                                                                              Article 6) given that, under Article 3 of Council Regulation
                         (Case C-163/99)                                      (EEC) No 2408/92 (1), Community air carriers have right
                                                                              of access to operate internal routes on an entirely equal
                                                                              footing with national operators. The 50 % reduction of the
                         (1999/C 226/21)                                      taxes on domestic flights affects, first and foremost,
                                                                              connections between continental Portugal and the Auton-
                                                                              omous Regions and between the Autonomous Regions,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which, because of their insularity, have no alternative to
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  air transport. Other domestic flights also benefit from such
Communities on 4 May 1999 by the Portuguese Republic,                         a reduction because they are short-haul flights whose fares
represented by Dr Luı́s Fernandes. Dr Maria Luı́sa Duarte and                 must be kept low. The validity of these reasons and their
Dr Fátima Viegas, acting as Agents with an address for service               compatibility with the Treaty is inextricably linked with
in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer.                   the overriding objective of economic and social cohesion
                                                                              (see Article 3(k) EC (formerly 3(j))) and with the acknowl-
                                                                              edgement in the Treaty of the status as outermost regions
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of the Azores and Madeira (see Article 227 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty — now, after amendment, Art. 299(2) EC).
— Uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the                  — The applicable system of landing taxes at Portuguese
     Commission’s decision of 10 February 1999 relating to a                  airports does not entail abuse of a dominant position: the
     proceeding under Article 90 of the EC Treaty (IV/35.703                  interpretation which the Commission puts forward in the
     — Portuguese airports).                                                  contested decision of Article 82 EC (ex Article 86), in
                                                                              conjunction with Article 86 EC (ex Article 90), is contrary
                                                                              to the principle of neutrality, as laid clown in Article 295
                                                                              EC (ex Article 222). Undertakings operating exclusive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               concessions and public undertakings are otherwise pre-
                                                                              vented from resorting to business strategies, such as
                                                                              bulk-order discounts which are widely used by undertak-
(Anent procedure followed and measures adopted by the                         ings and are dictated by the economic requirement to
Commission)                                                                   show a profit.
— Breach of the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
                                                                             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ
— Breach of the principle of proportionality: since the                      1992 L 240, p. 8.
     distinction between domestic and international traffic for
     the purpose of levying airport taxes is provided for in the
     legislation applicable to most airports of the European
     Union, the most appropriate and least onerous measure
     would have been a directive. By imposing on a Member
     State the specific obligation of modifying unilaterally the
     amount or the methods for implementing airport landing
     taxes, the Commission disregarded the detrimental and
     serious effect of such a measure on the competitive
     conditions between air carriers on the Community market.
     Only a directive, which prescribes the same period for all
     the Member States for its implementation, can ensure the
     necessary harmonisation of national laws and that changes           Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Republic of Austria
     will take place at the same time, as required by the rules of         against the Commission of the European Communities
     fair competition in the field of airport taxes and of air
     transport in general.
                                                                                (Case C-165/99)
— Abuse of process: a decision adopted under Article 86(3)
     (ex Article 90) only constitutes a fair and lawful alternative
     to infringement proceedings where such a decision is a                                       (1999/C 226/22)
     necessary, adequate and proportionate measure.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Anent the lack of substantive grounds for the adoption of a             ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC (ex Article         Communities on 4 May 1999 by the Republic of Austria,
90) and Article 82 EC (ex Article 86))                                   represented by Dr Harald Dossi, of the Constitutional Service


title: Case T-504/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Rafhaelo Gutti v OHIM — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/43

         Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Rafhaelo Gutti v OHIM — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)
   (Case T-504/15)
   (2015/C 354/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Rafhaelo Gutti, SL (Loja, Spain) (represented by: I. L. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Transformados del Sur, SA (Seville, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA’ — Application for registration No 11 641 818

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2015 in Case R 2424/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 2424/2014-4, in turn annul Opposition B 2 226 655 and grant the application for Community trade mark 11 641 818 CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA for goods in Class 25 which have been refused registration.

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-185/06: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom ) — British Telecommunications plc, The Queen v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom ) — British Telecommunications plc, The Queen v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-185/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/40)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne against the European Commission (Case T-115/97)

text:
No C 212/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant assembles bicycles in France under its own              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
brand name ' Starway' and under the brand names of its                in Case T-16/97 P ). '
customers for bicycles made to order.
                                                                       1 OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
This action is for the annulment of Article 2 of Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 of 10 January 1997 extending
the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
( EEC ) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from
the People's Republic of China, in so far as it applies to            Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman
imports by the applicant.                                                           against the European Commission
                                                                                ( Case T-l 16/97 )
The applicant considers that the Council has infringed
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/56 )
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 by extending the anti-dumping duty                                   (Language of the case: French)
applicable to imports of bicycles to imports of parts of
bicycles without the conditions in Article 13 (2 ) of that            An action against the European Commission was brought
regulation, and particularly Article 13 (2 ) ( b ) thereof,           before the Court of First Instance of the European
being fulfilled. The Council wrongly concluded that                   Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman,
bicycle parts originating in China imported by the                    residing in Riga ( Latvia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
applicant during the period of the investigation constituted          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
 assembled product.                                                    Rue de Cessange .
The applicant maintains, moreover, that, contrary to                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Article 190 of the Treaty, the contested regulation is not
 supported by an adequate statement of reasons, in that the           — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996
 grounds relied on to justify the extension of the anti                   rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
 dumping duty to the imports of bicycle parts by the                       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of
 applicant bear no logical relation to the conclusion they                 the Staff Regulations,
 are alleged to support.
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                           expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne                       proceedings.
                against the European Commission
                         ( Case T-l 15/97)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                           ( 97/C 212/55 )
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       in Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
                  (Language of the case: French)
  An action against the European Commission was brought                (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
  before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne,
  residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the
  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche against
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-128/97 )
  — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996                                                      97/C 212/57
       rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of                        (Language of the case: French)
       the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
  — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
       adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                    Communities on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche, residing
       expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
       proceedings .                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .


title: Case C-23/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Josif Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Josif Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900
   (Case C-23/08)
   (2008/C 107/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Nürnberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josif Koupatantze

      Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compatible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of social assistance if the maximum period of residence permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under other provisions?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 12 EC preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union even from receipt of the social assistance benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-613/15: Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Term relating to default interest — Early repayment term — Power of the national court — Time limit)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/4

         Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González
   (Case C-613/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loans - Term relating to default interest - Early repayment term - Power of the national court - Time limit))
   (2016/C 200/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas (Spain)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ibercaja Banco SAU

      Defendant: José Cortés González

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2003 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) thereof do not permit the law of a Member State to restrict the discretion of a national court in respect of a finding of unfair terms in a mortgage contract concluded between a consumer and a professional, and

               —

               Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof require that national law may not prevent that court from setting aside such a term if it were found to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-147/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission (Customs union — Imports of preserved mushrooms from China — Decision finding no justification for the remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities — Obvious negligence on the part of the importer — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Sound administration — Equal treatment)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission
   (Case T-147/12) (1)

   (Customs union - Imports of preserved mushrooms from China - Decision finding no justification for the remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Sound administration - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 377/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Keppenne and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 determining that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG, Republic of Austria v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Aid declared illegal and incompatible with the common market — Aid granted to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) at the time of the privatisation of Bank Burgenland AG — Determination of the market price — Tender procedure — Unlawful conditions with no impact on the highest offer — ‘Private vendor’ test — Distinction between a State’s obligations in cases where it acts as a public authority and where it acts as a shareholder — Distortion of evidence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG, Republic of Austria v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid declared illegal and incompatible with the common market - Aid granted to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) at the time of the privatisation of Bank Burgenland AG - Determination of the market price - Tender procedure - Unlawful conditions with no impact on the highest offer - ‘Private vendor’ test - Distinction between a State’s obligations in cases where it acts as a public authority and where it acts as a shareholder - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 367/22
   Language of the cases: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Land Burgenland (represented by: U. Soltész, P. Melcher and A. Egger, Rechtsanwälte), Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (represented by: H. Wollmann, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and J. Bauer, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria, Land Burgenland

      Interveners in support of Land Burgenland and the Republic of Austria: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: K. Petersen, T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08 Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on the State aid granted by Austria as part of the privatisation of the Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32) — Breach of European Union law and, in particular, of Article 107(1) TFEU — Incorrect assessment of the performance bond (‘Ausfallshaftung’) of the Land Burgenland in favour of Bank Burgenland

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG and the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

      OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-643/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 December 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 December 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
   (Case C-643/16)
   (2017/C 078/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: American Express Co.

      Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Does a payment system, to which the Access Obligation provided for in Article 35(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (1) (‘PSD2’) would otherwise not apply, by virtue of Article 35(2)(b) PSD2, render itself subject to that Obligation (i) by entering into co-brand arrangements with co-brand partners who do not themselves provide payment services on that system in relation to that co-branded product offering and/or (ii) by using an agent to act on its behalf in providing payment services?

               (2)

               If the answer to Question (1) is ‘yes’, is Article 35(1) of PSD2 invalid in so far as it provides that systems with such arrangements are to be subject to the Access Obligation, on the grounds of:

                           (a)

                           failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU;

                           (b)

                           manifest error of assessment; and/or

                           (c)

                           breach of the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015, L 337, p. 35).


title: Case C-616/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Productos Asfálticos (PROAS), S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-495/07 PROAS v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/15

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Productos Asfálticos (PROAS), S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-495/07 PROAS v Commission
   (Case C-616/13 P)
   2014/C 24/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Productos Asfálticos (PROAS), S.A. (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013;

               —

               grant the application made at first instance and annul the Commission’s decision of 3 October 2007 in Case COMP/38.710 — Betún España or, alternatively, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for the matter to be determined anew;

               —

               order, at all events, the Commission to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings, and those incurred as a result of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Breach by the General Court of the principle of effective protection by failing to examine, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the pleas in law relied on by Productos Asfálticos, S.A. in relation to the determination of the amount of the penalty. That breach consists of:

                           —

                           distortion by the General Court of the pleas in law relied on by PROAS in its action for annulment before the General Court;

                           —

                           lack of an independent analysis by the General Court as to the proportionality of and the statement of reasons for the penalty imposed in relation to the effects of the infringement;

                           —

                           failure of the General Court to carry out an analysis of observance by the Commission of the principle of equality of treatment and of legal certainty in relation to its earlier decisions;

                           —

                           failure to carry out an effective analysis in relation to PROAS’s specific weight in the infringement and incorrect refusal to grant the procedural measures requested.

               2.

                     Breach by the General Court of the principles of legal certainty and equal treatment, and of PROAS’s right to a fair hearing
                  , as a result of the incorrect interpretation of the guidelines for the calculation of the fines imposed under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. (1)

                           —

                           The General Court has authorised the Commission to infringe its own guidelines by allowing it not to take into account, in determining the fine, the minor effect of the breach.

                           —

                           The General Court has infringed PROAS’s right to a fair hearing in not allowing it to rebut the rebuttable presumption that cartels always have effects.

               3.

                     Breach by the General Court of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to act within a reasonable time.

               4.

                     Breach by the General Court of the principles relating to costs.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).


title: Case C-24/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dél-Zempléni Nektár Leader Nonprofit kft v Vidékfejlesztési Miniszter (Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — EAFRD — Requirements relating to the legal form of local action groups — Amendment of those requirements — Competence of the Member States — Limits)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/17

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dél-Zempléni Nektár Leader Nonprofit kft v Vidékfejlesztési Miniszter
   (Case C-24/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - EAFRD - Requirements relating to the legal form of local action groups - Amendment of those requirements - Competence of the Member States - Limits))
   2014/C 112/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dél-Zempléni Nektár Leader Nonprofit kft

      Defendant: Vidékfejlesztési Miniszter

      Re:

   Request for preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 368, p. 15) and of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 277, p. 1) — Non-profit-making company declared Leader local action group, set up in the context of agricultural aid — Withdrawal of designation as local action group on the ground that only associations may be classified as such.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in particular Articles 61 and 62 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require nor, in principle, prohibit, the adoption of national provisions to the effect that a local action group which meets all of the conditions listed in Article 62(1) of that regulation may not operate unless it does so under a particular form of legal organisation. It is, however, for the referring court to ensure that, bearing in mind all of its relevant characteristics, such legislation does not obstruct the direct applicability of that regulation and that it specifies the exercise of the margin of discretion granted to the Member States by that regulation whilst remaining within its bounds. It is likewise for the referring court to ensure that that national rule observes the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of European Union law.

               2.

               European Union law does not preclude, in principle, a rule of national law which provides that local action groups may not operate unless they do so under a specific legal form from applying, at the end of a transitional period of one year, to local action groups that have been validly created under a different form of legal organisation under earlier national legislation, even though the aid programmes and the programming period relating thereto are underway. That is so, however, only in so far as it is for the national court to verify that, in the light, in particular, of the specific characteristics of the abovementioned successive rules of national law and of the practical implications thereof, the application of the new legislation to such local action groups specifies the exercise of the margin of discretion granted to the Member States by Regulation No 1698/2005 whilst remaining within its bounds and that such application is in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as the general principles of European Union law.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-139/05: Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-139/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/62)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-285/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Dominator International v EUIPO (DREAMLINE)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/49

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Dominator International v EUIPO (DREAMLINE)
   (Case T-285/16)
   (2016/C 260/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominator International GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Gugerbauer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DREAMLINE’ — Application for registration No 1 222 091

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 in Case R 1669/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Joined Cases T-12/99 and T-63/99 UK Coal plc v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — Decision No 3632/93/ECSC — Operating aid and aid for the reduction of activity — Authorisation ex post facto of aid already paid — Improvement of the viability of recipient undertakings — Degression of aid — Bonus paid to underground mineworkers (Bergmannsprämie) — Amendment of a modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring plan — Taking account of a concentration between undertakings — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 331/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              L 215, p. 62) and, secondly, for damages together with interest
                                                                         thereon in compensation for the loss caused to the applicants
                                                                         by the adoption of that Regulation — in Case T-225/1999,
                         of 12 July 2001                                 first, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1586/99
                                                                         of 20 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 2632/98 laying
in Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98                   down for 1999 the single adjustment coefficient to be applied
and T-225/99, Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe                  to each traditional operator’s provisional reference quantity
Ltd & Co. v Commission of the European Communities (1)                   under the tariff quotas for traditional ACP bananas (OJ 1999
                                                                         L 188, p. 19) and, secondly, for damages together with interest
                                                                         thereon in compensation for the loss caused to the applicants
(Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Action                   by the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1586/1999, — the
for annulment — Admissibility — Legality of reduction and                Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
        adjustment coefficients — Action for damages)                    President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Pala-
                                                                         cio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                        (2001/C 331/28)                                  judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)                       1.     Dismisses the claims for annulment as inadmissible.
                                                                         2.     Dismisses the claims for damages as unfounded.
                                                                         3.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly to pay
In Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 and
                                                                                the costs of the Commission.
T-225/99 Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa (Italy), and
Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established in Hamburg
                                                                         4.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(Germany), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and B. Gar-
cı́a Porras, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  (1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.95, C 9 of 11.1.97, C 318 of 18.10.97, C 160
X. Lewis, K. Fitch, H. van Vliet, T. van Rijn, C. Van der                    of 5.6.1999 and C 6 of 8.1.2000.
Hauwaert, E. de March, J. Flett and J. Handoll), supported by
the French Republic, (Agents: C. Vasak, C. de Salins, K. Rispal-
Bellanger and F. Pascal), in Cases T-198/95, T-171/96,
T-230/97, and the Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: R. Silva de
Lapuerta), in Cases T-230/97 and T-225/99 — application
for — in Case T-198/95, first, annulment of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1869/95 of 26 July 1995, amending                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Regulation (EC) No 2947/94 fixing the single reduction
coefficient for the determination of the quantity of bananas to
be allocated to each operator in categories A and B within the                                       of 12 July 2001
tariff quota for 1995 (OJ 1995 L 179, p. 38), and, secondly,
for damages together with interest thereon, in compensation              in Joined Cases T-12/99 and T-63/99 UK Coal plc v
for the loss caused to the applicants by the adoption of                         Commission of the European Communities (1)
Regulation (EC) No 1869/95, — in Case T-171/96, first,
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1561/96
                                                                         (ECSC Treaty — Decision No 3632/93/ECSC — Operating
of 30 July 1996 fixing the reduction coefficients for the
                                                                         aid and aid for the reduction of activity — Authorisation ex
determination of the quantity of bananas to be allocated to
                                                                         post facto of aid already paid — Improvement of the viability
each operator in categories A and B within the tariff quota for
                                                                         of recipient undertakings — Degression of aid — Bonus
1996 (OJ 1996 L 193, p. 15), and, secondly, for damages
                                                                         paid to underground mineworkers (Bergmannsprämie) —
together with interest thereon in compensation for the loss
                                                                         Amendment of a modernisation, rationalisation and restruc-
caused to the applicants by the adoption of that Regulation —
                                                                         turing plan — Taking account of a concentration between
in Case T-230/97, first, annulment of Commission Regulation
                                                                                undertakings — Statement of reasons)
(EC) No 1155/97 of 25 June 1997 fixing the reduction
coefficients for the determination of the quantity of bananas
to be allocated to each operator in categories A and B within                                       (2001/C 331/29)
the tariff quota for 1997 (OJ 1997 L 168, p. 67) and, secondly,
for damages together with interest thereon in compensation                                    (Language of the case: English)
for the loss caused to the applicants by the adoption of
that Regulation — in Case T-174/98, first, annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1721/98 of 31 July 1998
fixing the reduction coefficients for the determination of the           In Joined Cases T-12/99 and T-63/99 UK Coal plc, formerly
quantity of bananas to be allocated to each operator in                  RJB Mining plc, whose registered office is in Harworth (United
categories A and B within the tariff quota for 1998 (OJ 1998             Kingdom), represented by M. Brealey, Barrister, and
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 331/19
J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                     Composition), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and K.-D. Borchardt, and N. Khan),                 Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                         H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
W.-D. Plessing, T. Jürgensen and M. Maier) and by RAG                     which it:
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented
by M. Hansen and S. Völcker, lawyers, with an address for                 1.    Dismisses the action;
service in Luxembourg — applications for annulment of
Commission Decisions 1999/270/EC and 1999/299/ECSC of                     2.    Orders the applicant to pay her own costs and those incurred
2 and 22 December 1998 on German aid to the coal industry                       by the defendant;
for 1998 and 1999 (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 14 and L 117, p. 44)
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                   3.    Orders each of the interveners to bear their own costs.
Composition), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Le-
naerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Chris-           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 July 2001, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the actions;
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       by the Commission and the intervener RAG Aktiengesellschaft;
                                                                                of 27 June 2001
3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
                                                                          in Case T-166/99, Luis Fernando Andres de Dios and
( 1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999 and C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                   Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                          (Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen
                                                                          Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council —
                                                                                Action for annulment — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/31)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           of 12 July 2001
in Case T-120/99 Christina Kik v Office for Harmonisation                 In Case T-166/99 Luis Fernando Andres de Dios, residing in
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          Brussels, Belgium, Maria Soledad Garcı́a Retortillo, residing in
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  Cáceres, Spain, Suzanne Kitlas, residing in Brussels, Jacques
                                                                          Verraes, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis,
                                                                          G. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service
(Article 115 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rules govern-                  in Luxembourg, supported by Union syndicale-Bruxelles,
ing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the                      established in Brussels, represented by S. Parmesan, lawyer,
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Plea of                       with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
          illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)                   the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer, F. Anton and
                                                                          A. Bentley) — application for annulment of Council Decision
                          (2001/C 331/30)                                 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed
                                                                          arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                        into the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 1999 L 119,
                                                                          p. 49) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                          composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
In Case T-120/99 Christina Kik, residing in The Hague                     given a judgment on 27 June 2001, in which it:
(Netherlands), represented by G.L. Kooy, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Hellenic              1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Republic (Agents: K. Samoni-Randou and S. Vodina), against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto, J. Miranda                      severally to pay those of the Council;
de Sousa, and J. Bourgeois), supported by the Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) and the Council of the                   3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
European Union (Agents: G. Houttuin and A. Lo Monaco) —
action brought against the decision of the Third Board of                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 65/98-3)


title: Case C-375/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/105/EC — Protection of workers — Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-375/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/105/EC - Protection of workers - Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 155/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2 of Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.