title: Case C-184/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that court of 15 April 2003 in the case of Helmut Fröschl against Republic of Austria

text:
C 47/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
8.    Are the provisions of the EC Treaty founding state liability             does not provide in the event of irregular legislative
      under the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice where               measures (Paragraph 1 AHG — ‘in enforcement of the
      rights directly conferred on EC citizens by the EC Treaty                Laws ...’), also to be classified as a damages claim?
      are grossly and culpably infringed to be interpreted as
      meaning that relevant restrictions on state liability under
      the national legal order, or also on the basis of decisions        (1) Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The
      of national courts (in particular to the effect that claims            Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd
      for compensation in regard to foreign policy measures                  and Others [1996] ECR I-1029.
      are precluded), are in any event unlawful?                         (2) Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                  für Zivilrechtsachen Wien by order of that court of
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that court of                     7 April 2003 in the case of Monika Herbstrith against
15 April 2003 in the case of Helmut Fröschl against                                              Republic of Austria
                        Republic of Austria
                                                                                (Case C-229/03)
                         (Case C-184/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/20)
                          (2004/C 47/19)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Zivilrechtsachen Wien (Regional civil court, Vienna) of 7 April
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für                   2003, received at the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a
Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Court for civil cases, Vienna)          preliminary ruling in the case of Monika Herbstrith against
of 15 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on 5 May                Republic of Austria on the following questions:
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Helmut Fröschl
against Republic of Austria on the following questions:                  1.    Is EU law concerning equal treatment of men and women
                                                                               at work, in particular Directive 76/207/EEC (1), directly
                                                                               applicable, so that, as to amount, a claim for compen-
1.    In 1998 was it contrary to then directly applicable                      sation under Paragraph 15(1) of the B-GBG may be
      Community law, in particular Articles 12, 43 and 49 of                   obtained to the full extent of the damage occasioned,
      the EC Treaty, to interpret Paragraph 373c(3)(a), (b) and                irrespective of any limitation under Austrian domestic
      (c) of the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Trade Code, GewO                         legislation or, in the absence of any such direct applica-
      1994), BGBl No 194, in the version of BGBl No I 63/                      bility of EU law, is there a claim founded on state liability
      1997, and the Regulation of the Federal Minister for                     for compensation to the full extent of the damage?
      Economic Affairs on the grant of exemption from the
      prescribed proof of competence for nationals of Member
      States of the Agreement on the European Economic Area,             2.    In the assessment of claims in respect of the foregoing is
      BGBl No 775/1993, in such a way that a national                          the rule concerning the burden of proof in Article 4 of
      photographer is prohibited from exercising his trade                     Council Directive 97/80/EC (2) directly applicable and, if
      because the qualifications set out there for proof of                    so,
      competence have been acquired by him in Austria and
      not in another State of the EEA?                                         (a)   does that apply on the basis that an expert opinion
                                                                                within the meaning of Paragraph 22(1) of the B-
      If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:                                  GBG is sufficient for the purposes of attestation if it
                                                                                appears conclusively and unreservedly that there is
      According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice                      discrimination and it cannot be ruled out that such
      (e.g. Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 (1); Case C-453/                        discrimination arose for gender-related reasons, with
      99 (2)), is the payment of the costs which the plaintiff has                   the result that in the case giving rise to this reference
      to incur in domestic proceedings, including his recourse                       the opinion of the federal committee on equal
      to public law courts, in order to have a law contrary to                       treatment of 9 November 1998 satisfies this require-
      Community law set aside and for which national law                             ment


title: Case C-271/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2006 — Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2006 — Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin
   (Case C-271/06)
   (2006/C 224/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof, München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Malchin
   Question referred
   Do the provisions of Community law on exemption from tax for exports to a third country preclude the granting of exemption from tax by the Member State on the grounds of fairness where the conditions for exemption are not satisfied but the taxable person was unable, even by exercising due commercial care, to recognise that they were not met? (1)

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


title: Case T-388/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/76

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
   (Case T-388/14) (1)

   (2016/C 027/96)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case T-132/10: Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/35

         Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission
   (Case T-132/10)
   2010/C 148/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Communauté de communes de Lacq (Mourenx, France) (represented by: J. Daniel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 000 because of the unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission’s behaviour in the light of the breach, by ACETEX, of its undertakings;

               —

               order the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 by way of non -recoverable costs;

               —

               order the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Communauté de communes de Lacq (Community of the communes of Lacq) seeks damages for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision to declare compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement the concentration involving the acquisition, by Celanese Corporation, of control of Acetex Corporation, without acknowledging the legal value to an alleged undertaking by Celanese, in particular the commitment to continue the operation of the Acetex factory in Pardies for five years (Case COMP/M.3625 — Blackstone/Acetex).
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations since, through its interpretation of the EC Merger Regulation, (1) it deprived all third parties to concentrations (employees and local officials) of protection, even though, in the light of the commitments given by Celanese Corporation, it was certain that employees would be protected against a cessation of activity for five years.
   The applicant thus certainly suffered significant damage. Indeed, local authorities in that area are deprived of important fiscal resources and have to pay out numerous social benefits because of the closure of the site. Numerous redundancies must be expected, both among employees of Acetex and also among employees of companies whose activities were closely linked to that of Celanese Corporation.
   In the alternative, if it cannot be established that there was tortious liability on the part of the European Commission, the applicant asks that the Commission be held strictly liable. There can be no doubt as to the damage suffered by the applicant and its unusual and special nature and that that damage was directly caused by the refusal of the European Commission to sanction Celanese Corporation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)


title: Case T-124/09: Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM — Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM — Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)
   (Case T-124/09)
   2009/C 129/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Valigeria Roncato SpA (Campodarsego, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani, lawyer, and P. Pozzi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roncato Srl (Campodarsego, Italy)

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2009, notified on 30 January 2009, in joined cases R 237/2008-1 and R 263/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of these proceedings, as well as those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: RONCATO Srl.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark “CARLO RONCATO” (registration application No 4 631 719) for goods in Classes 3, 9 and 14.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark “RV RONCATO” (No 622 773), Italian word mark “RONCATO” (No. 510 528) and non-registered Italian figurative marks “RV RONCATO”.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition and upheld the application for registration in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-286/97)

text:
27. 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Portuguese
The third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                                                          Republic
requires the Member States to which a directive is                                                    ( Case C-285/97)
addressed to ensure that their legislation is in compliance
with the directive within the prescribed period . When the                                              ( 97/C 295/34 )
period prescribed in Article 10 of Directive 92/73/EEC
expired on 31 December 1993 , France had not adopted
the necessary measures .                                                  An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(>) OJ L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 8 .
                                                                          on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .                   Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
(») OJ L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 13 .                                     of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                 Belgium                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           ( Case C-283/97 )                                     Commission Directive 94/5 1 /EC (') of 7 November
                                                                                1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                             ( 97/C 295/33 )                                     90/21 9/EEC ( 2 ) on the contained use of genetically
                                                                                modified micro-organisms, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
before the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the                              Article 2 of Directive 94/5 1 /EC,
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service,
and O. Couvert-Castera, a national civil servant on                       — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
secondment to that service, acting as Agents, with an                            the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      under those provisions,
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                   — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
       92/73/EEC ( x ) of 22 September 1992 widening the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
       scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2) and 75/31 9/EEC ( 3 )            those in Case C-282/97 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposing
       on the approximation of provisions laid down by                    the Directive expired on 30 April 1995 .
       law, regulation or administrative action relating to
       medicinal products and laying down additional                      (') OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p . 29 .
       provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the                  ( 2 ) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            (■') See page 20 of this Official Journal .
       under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
submitted in Case C-282/97 (4 ).                                                                             Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-286/97
O OJ L 297, 13 . 10.1992, p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965—1966 , p. 20 .                                                    97/C 295/35 )
(') OJ L 147, 9 . 6.1975 , p . 13 .
( 4 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .
                                                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- C29SI22                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27 . 9 . 97
on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                       Must Articles 9 and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 of
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                   28 December 1992 (') be interpreted as meaning that any
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for               person delivering milk , regardless of the legal nature of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                the relationship which gave rise to the delivery, may be
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                         treated as a 'purchaser' liable to pay the additional levy
                                                                         and , in particular, as meaning that a group of cooperatives
                                                                         may be so regarded with respect to milk delivered, not
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             sold, to it by the members of the cooperative ?
                                                                         (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/
       EC (') of 20 December 1994 on the control of volatile
       organic compound (VOC ) emissions resulting from the
        storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to
        service stations, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
        fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
        Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 10 ( 1 ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
        Directive 94/63/EC ,                                             Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that
                                                                         court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Consorzio fra i
                                                                           Caseifici dell'Altopiano di Asiago against Regione Veneto
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform                                           ( Case C-288/97
        the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations                                          ( 97/C 295/37 )
        under those provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                         Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's
                                                                          Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 17 July 1997, received at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Consorzio fra i Caseifici
                                                                         dell'Altopiano di Asiago v. Regione Veneto on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                    following questions :
those in Case C-282/97 ( 2 ); the time-limit for transposing
the Directive expired on 31 December 1995 .
 (') OJ L 365 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 24 .
                                                                          1 . Must Articles 9 and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/
 ( 2 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .                                  92 of 28 December 1992 (') be interpreted as meaning
                                                                              that any person delivering milk, regardless of the legal
                                                                              nature of the relationship which gave rise to the
                                                                               delivery, may be treated as a 'purchaser' liable to pay
                                                                               the additional levy and, in particular, as meaning that
                                                                               a group of cooperatives may be so regarded with
                                                                               respect to milk delivered, not sold, to it by the
                                                                               members of the cooperative ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
 Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that
 court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Claudio Matteazzi
              against Caseificio Sociale San Rocco scarl                  2 . Must Article 2 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 of
                            ( Case C-287/97 )                                  28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               purchasers are actually and personally required to
                              ( 97/C 295/36 )                                  deduct from the amount paid to producers the amount
                                                                               payable by way of additional levy, or that it is merely
                                                                               a right conferred in the purchaser's interests, failure to
                                                                               exercise which cannot entail penalties ?
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  European Communities by order of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's             (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
  Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 17 July 1997, received at
  the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a preliminary
  ruling in the case of Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
  Sociale San Rocco scarl on the following question :


title: Case T-69/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel Poveda Morillas against the European Parliament

text:
C 101/52                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order the European Parliament to grant to the applicant
                                                                                the resettlement allowance provided for under Article 6
                                                                                of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with retroactive
The present application is directed against a decision of the                    effect from 1 June 2002;
Commission of 20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation
Alsace to repay to it EUR 18 000 (principal sum) as a result of            —     order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the
its failure to fulfil subvention agreement PSS*/0534, concern-                   proceedings.
ing the organisation in Strasbourg of a conference from
29 June to 2 July 1992 entitled: ‘Quel avenir pour la
xénotransplantation et éthique et xénotransplantation’.
According to the Commission, the applicant failed to fulfil one            Pleas in law and main arguments
of its obligations, namely to provide scientific reports.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a former official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, was retired with entitlement to receive an invalidity
                                                                           pension as from 1 June 1999. On 31 May 2002 the applicant
In support of its claims, in addition to pleading lack of a                submitted to the defendant an application for the resettlement
statement of reasons, the applicant alleges:                               allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to the
                                                                           Staff Regulations, stating that he had, on the previous day,
—     expiry of time-limits to bring an action for restitution             definitively resettled in England. Following the defendant’s
      inasmuch as reimbursement of the subsidy in question is              rejection of that application, the applicant brought the present
      required more than 10 years after it was granted;                    action, invoking three pleas in law in support thereof:
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that            —     manifest error of assessment;
      the condition relating to distribution of scientific reports
      was met, having regard to the nationality and number of              —     breach of the provisions of the second subparagraph of
      participants at the conference who were all leading                        Article 6(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
      specialists in the field with which the conference was
      concerned.                                                           —     infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister
                                                                           against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel                                                       (OHIM)
      Poveda Morillas against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-76/03)
                           (Case T-69/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/91)
                          (2003/C 101/90)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                           of the European Communities on 28 February 2003 by
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               Herbert Meister, residing in Muchamiel (Spain), represented by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel Poveda Morillas, residing in
Folkestone (United Kingdom), represented by Patrick Goergen,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 22 April 2002 of the President of
                                                                                the Office transferring the applicant together with his
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      post as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs
                                                                                with effect from 1 May 2002;
—     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 3 June
      2002 refusing to grant to the applicant the resettlement             —     order the applicant’s rights to be fully restored, which
      allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to                     means retransferring him and his post to his original
      the Staff Regulations;                                                     department, in its original structure;


title: Case T-436/08: Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Studio Vacanze v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/58

         Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Studio Vacanze v Commission
   (Case T-436/08)
   (2008/C 301/96)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Studio Vacanze (Budoni, Italy) (represented by: M. Cannata, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   Principal forms of order sought:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 July 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Alternative form of order sought:
   Annul Article 2(2) of the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid found to be incompatible, together with interest, as from the date on which the amounts were made available to the recipients until the date of their actual recovery.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-394/08 Regione Sardegna v Commission and Case T-408/08 S.F. Turistico Immobiliare v Council and Commission.
   The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its action:

               —

               infringement of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1), in so far as that provision authorises the opening of the formal investigation procedure only in cases of ‘misuse of aid’ and not for the ‘creation of unlawful aid’: it follows, according to the applicant, that the entire formal investigation procedure is invalid;

               —

               failure to state adequate reasons as regards the amendment of the subject-matter of the procedure opened for the misuse of aid measure No 278/99, and the ‘extension’ which led to the adoption of the contested decision;

               —

               infringement of Article 88(2) EC in so far as the statement in recital 74 of the decision, regarding the unlawful implementation of the aid in question, is outside the scope of that provision;

               —

               breach of the principle of transparency;

               —

               failure to state adequate reasons as regards the principle of the reasonable duration of the formal investigation procedure;

               —

               failure to state reasons as regards the recovery of the aid already disbursed, having regard to the fact that this point was also of particular importance in relation to the principle of the protection of legitimate interests of third parties and to the unreasonably lengthy duration of the proceedings;

               —

               breach of the de minimis principle laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (2).

      (1)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30.


title: Case T-82/17: Action brought on 7 February 2017 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/37

         Action brought on 7 February 2017 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep)
   (Case T-82/17)
   (2017/C 121/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Exxtra Deep’ — EU trade mark No 12 161 981

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 482/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-124/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM –Roncato (CARLO RONCATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for community word mark CARLO RONCATO — Unregistered national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO — Earlier national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO — No likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character and repute of the earlier marks — Due cause for the use of the mark applied for — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM –Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)
   (Case T-124/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for community word mark CARLO RONCATO - Unregistered national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO - Earlier national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO - No likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character and repute of the earlier marks - Due cause for the use of the mark applied for - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 221/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Valigeria Roncato SpA (Campodarsego, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roncato Srl (Campodarsego) (represented by: M. Cartella and M. Fazzini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2009 (Cases R 237/2008-1 and R 236/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Valigeria Roncato SpA and Roncato Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Valigeria Roncato SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, of 6.6.2009.


title: Case T-234/12: Action brought on 1 June 2012 — Amitié v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/22

         Action brought on 1 June 2012 — Amitié v Commission
   (Case T-234/12)
   2012/C 243/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Amitié Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: D. Bogaert and M. Picat, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the following debit notes sent by the Commission are not due:

                           —

                           50 458,23 EUR in the framework of the MINERVAPLUS Agreement concluded between the applicant and the Commission;

                           —

                           358 712,35 EUR in the framework of the MICHAEL Agreement concluded between the applicant and the Commission.

               —

               Declare that the recovery request of the total amount of 1 083 616,89 EUR is not grounded;

               —

               Recognize that the Commission could not on 11 June 2011 impose to the applicant an extrapolation procedure in the framework of the BSOLE Agreement;

               —

               State that the extrapolation procedure is therefore not grounded under Belgian Law;

               —

               Declare that the Commission is not entitled to apply an extrapolation process to BSOLE Agreement since 14 January 2010;

               —

               Proclaim the unilateral freezing of the payments of the Community Financial Contributions for ATHENA and JUDAICA Agreements as not grounded under Luxemburg Law;

               —

               Order the immediate unfreezing of the Community Financial Contributions, i.e. the amount of amount of 263 120 EUR blocked since 8 February 2010 for JUDAICA and since 14 June 2010 for ATHENA;

               —

               Order the immediate payment as from the date when the judgment is rendered by way of wire transfer on:

                           —

                           The bank account of the project coordinator, according to Article 6.2 of the JUDAICA Grant Agreement;

                           —

                           The bank account of the project coordinator, according to Article 6.2 of the ATHENA Grant Agreement;

               —

               Condemn the Commission to the payment of the amount of:

                           —

                           150 000 EUR corresponding to the compensation of the counsels and Italian auditor fees (provisional); and

                           —

                           256 824,17 EUR corresponding to the compensation of the damages caused by the ungrounded or abusive unilateral freezing of the payments in the framework of ATHENA and JUDAICA Agreements by the European Commission.

               —

               Condemn the Commission to reimburse to the applicant any and all costs and expenses incurred by it in the framework of the present proceeding to the extent that the disloyal behaviour of the Commission is the sole cause of the dispute at hand. Taking into account the nature and characteristics of the dispute, the costs are provisionally estimated at EUR 50 000; and

               —

               Declare the forthcoming judgment as enforceable notwithstanding that it may be appealed.

         In subsidiary order, assuming that the applicant is liable to pay a certain amount under the Commission’s Audit quod non, the applicant requests the General Court:

               —

               To declare that the applicant is only liable for an amount of 54 195,05 EUR and not 1 083 616,89 EUR under the Belgian and Luxemburg case-law relating to the sanction of the abusive behaviour of the Commission which is the reduction of such right to a normal use, i.e. an amount of 54 195,05 EUR and not 1 083 616,89 EUR; and

               —

               To declare the forthcoming judgment as enforceable notwithstanding that it may be appealed.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, contesting the findings of the Commission’s audit, as:

                           —

                           The findings of the Commission’s audit is contested based upon the report of an external and independent auditor, explicitly appointed by the applicant for this specific issue and for the assessment of the findings of the Commission’s audit; and

                           —

                           Subsidiary, it is alleged that there was abusive behaviour on the part of the Commission, thereby infringing the principle of good faith (Article 1134 of the Belgian and Luxembourg Civil Codes).

               2.

               Second plea in law, contesting the application of the extrapolation process to the BSOLE Agreement, as:

                           —

                           The Commission breached Article 17 of the General Conditions for eTEN Feasibility/Market Validation Contracts;

                           —

                           The Commission breached Article 4.2.2.3. of the Guide Financial Issues relating to the Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes of October 2003 and February 2005;

                           —

                           There was breach of contract by the Commission (Article 1134 §1 of Belgian Civil Code); and

                           —

                           The Commission breached the limitation period for proceeding under the European Law (see under Article 46 (ex Article 43) of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the unjustified freezing of the payments made in the framework of ATHENA and JUDAICA Agreements, part of the eCONTENTPLUS project, as:

                           —

                           The freezing is not grounded on the basis of the contractual provisions of the ATHENA and JUDAICA Agreements;

                           —

                           The freezing could not be justified under Articles 106.4 and 183 of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (1);

                           —

                           Article 183 of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 is also not applicable;

                           —

                           It is alleged that there was abusive behaviour on the part of the Commission regarding the unilateral and unjustified freezing of the payment of the Community Financial Contributions under Article 1134 of Civil Code; and

                           —

                           The principle of ‘exceptio non adimpleti contractus’ is also not applicable.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)


title: Case C-314/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) by order of 11 July 2001 in the case of (1) Siemens AG Österreich; (2) ARGE Telekom & Partner v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; intervening party: EDS/ORGA consortium

text:
C 317/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
4.   The Confédération belge du commerce et de la réparation                  (f)  the preparation of Medical Reports
     automobile et des secteurs connexes ASBL (Federauto) is ordered
     to bear its own costs.                                                        (i)   following the examinations referred to in (e)
                                                                                and
                                                                                (ii) based on medical notes but without conducting
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                               a medical examination,
                                                                              (g)  medical examinations conducted with a view to the
                                                                                preparation of expert Medical Reports regarding
                                                                                professional medical negligence for individuals con-
                                                                                templating litigation, and
                                                                              (h) the preparation of Medical Reports
                                                                                (i)   following the examinations referred to in (g)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                                 and
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
court of 6 June 2001, in the case of 1) Dr Peter L.                                (ii) based on medical notes but without conducting
d’Ambrumenil, 2) Dispute Resolution Services Ltd against                                 a medical examination?
           Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                        (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                         (Case C-307/01)
                         (2001/C 317/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               beamt (Austria) by order of 11 July 2001 in the case of
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, of 6 June 2001, which was            (1) Siemens AG Österreich; (2) ARGE Telekom & Partner
received at the Court Registry on 6 August 2001, for a                  v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversiche-
preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Dr Peter L. d’Ambrumenil,            rungsträger; intervening party: EDS/ORGA consortium
2) Dispute Resolution Services Ltd against Commissioners of
Customs and Excise, on the following questions:                                                 (Case C-314/01)
1.   Is article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May                                 (2001/C 317/18)
     1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     covering the following activities when performed in the            European Communities by order of 11 July 2001 by the
     exercise of the medical profession as defined by the               Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
     Member State:                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2001,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Siemens AG
                                                                        Österreich; (2) ARGE Telekom & Partner v Hauptverband der
     (a)   conducting medical examinations of individuals for           österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; intervening party:
           employers or insurance companies.                            EDS/ORGA consortium, on the following questions:
     (b) the taking of blood or other bodily samples to test            1.    Is Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December
           for the presence of viruses, infections or other                   1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
           diseases on behalf of employers or insurers,                       administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                              review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                              public works contracts, and in particular Article 2(1)(b)
     (c)   certification of medical fitness, for example, as to               thereof, if necessary in conjunction with Article 2(7)
           fitness to travel,                                                 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the legal effect
                                                                              of a decision taken by a national review body within the
     (d) giving certificates as to a person’s medical condition               meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665 relating to
           for purposes such as entitlement to a War Pension,                 the setting aside of a contracting authority’s decision not
                                                                              to cancel a contract award procedure is that if national
                                                                              law does not provide any basis for the effective and
     (e)   medical examinations conducted with a view to the                  compulsory enforcement of the review body’s decision
           preparation of expert Medical Reports regarding                    against the contracting authority, the contract award
           issues of liability and the quantification of damages              procedure is automatically terminated by the national
           for individuals contemplating personal injury liti-                review body’s decision, without the need for any further
           gation,                                                            act by the contracting authority?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 317/11
2.  Is Directive 89/665, in particular Article 2(7) thereof, if        5.   If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative: does
    necessary in conjunction with Council Directive                         Article 2(7) of Directive 89/665, if necessary in conjunc-
    92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-                   tion with other provisions of Community law, give the
    nation of procedures for the award of public service                    review body the power in such a case to threaten
    contracts, in particular Articles 25 and 32(2)(c) thereof,              contracting authorities and the members of their execu-
    or any other provisions of Community law, in particular                 tive organs with, and to impose on them, such fines or
    having regard to the effet utile doctrine relating to the               fines and imprisonment by way of coercive penalties as
    interpretation of Community law, to be construed as                     are necessary to enforce their orders and are calculated in
    meaning that a provision in an invitation to tender which               accordance with judicial discretion, where the contracting
    prohibits subcontracting material parts of the service                  authorities and the members of their executive organs do
    concerned and, contrary to the case-law of the Court of                 not comply with the orders issued by the review body?
    Justice, in particular Case C-176/98 Holst Italia [1999]
    ECR I-8607, prevents the tenderer from using his contract
    with his subcontractor to prove that the services of a             (1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
    third party are actually available to him and which thus           (2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
    deprives him of his right to prove his own capability by
    relying on the services of a third party or to prove that he
    actually has available a third party’s services, is so clearly
    contrary to Community law that a contract concluded on
    the basis of such an invitation to tender is to be regarded
    as invalid, in particular where national law in any case
    provides that illegal contracts are invalid?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                       beamt (Austria) by order of 11 July 2001 in the case of
                                                                       GAT Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH
                                                                       v Österreichische Autobahnen und Schnellstraßen AG
                                                                                (ÖSAG)
                                                                                (Case C-315/01)
3.  Is Directive 89/665, in particular Article 2(7) thereof, or
    any other provision of Community law, in particular
                                                                                (2001/C 317/19)
    having regard to the effet utile doctrine relating to the
    interpretation of Community law, to be construed as
    meaning that a contract concluded contrary to a decision           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    by a national review body within the meaning of                    European Communities by order of 11 July 2001 by the
    Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665 relating to the setting           Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
    aside of a contracting authority’s decision not to cancel a        which was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2001,
    contract award procedure is invalid, in particular where           for a preliminary ruling in the case of GAT Gesellschaft für
    national law in any case provides that immoral or illegal          Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH v Österreichische Auto-
    contracts are void but does not provide any basis for the          bahnen und Schnellstraßen AG (ÖSAG) on the following
    effective and compulsory enforcement of the review                 questions:
    body’s decision against the contracting authority?
                                                                       1.   Is Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of
                                                                            21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
                                                                            regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
                                                                            application of review procedures to the award of public
                                                                            supply and public works contracts, or any other provision
                                                                            of that directive or any other provision of Community
                                                                            law to be interpreted as meaning that an authority
4.  Is Directive 89/665, in particular Article 2(1)(b) thereof,             responsible for carrying out review procedures within the
    if necessary in conjunction with Article 2(7), to be                    meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, including the
    interpreted as meaning that where national law does                     exercise of the powers referred to in Article 2(1)(c)
    not otherwise provide any basis for the effective and                   thereof, is precluded from taking into account, of its own
    compulsory enforcement of the review body’s decision                    motion and independently of the submissions of the
    against the contracting authority, the review body has, by              parties to the review procedure, those circumstances
    virtue of the direct application of Article 2(1)(b) in                  relevant under the law governing contract award pro-
    conjunction with Article 2(7), the power to issue a                     cedures which the authority responsible for carrying out
    compulsory, enforceable order to the contracting auth-                  review procedures considers material to its decision in a
    ority to ensure that the unlawful decision is set aside,                review procedure?
    even though national law authorises the review body to
    issue only non-compulsory, non-enforceable orders to               2.   Is Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC, if necessary
    set aside contracting authorities ‘decisions in tenderers’              considered in conjunction with other principles of Com-
    applications for review within the meaning of Article 1(1)              munity law, to be interpreted as meaning that an authority
    of Directive 89/665?                                                    responsible for carrying out review procedures within the


title: Case C-507/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) — Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (Entitlement to childcare allowance in Austria — Periods of drawing family benefits in another Member State not taken into account — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) — Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

   (Case C-507/06) (1)

   (Entitlement to childcare allowance in Austria - Periods of drawing family benefits in another Member State not taken into account - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
   (2008/C 92/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Malina Klöppel

      Respondent: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
   Re:
   Reference for a Preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 72 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 1), and Article as well as of Article 10(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 410/2002 of 27 February 2002 (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 17) — Childcare allowance — Possibility of extending the period of granting from 30 months to 36 months where care of the child is transferred and allowance granted to other parent — Account not taken of periods, completed jointly by the father and the mother, of granting of a similar allowance paid to the other parent in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended in turn by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as the Austrian childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


               15.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/10

         Action brought on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-3/10)
   2010/C 191/08
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Bjørnar Alterskjær, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 31ea of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of the Act and under Article 7 EEA
               and

               2.

               The Republic of Iceland bears the costs of these proceedings

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

               —

               The present case concerns the non-implementation of a directive on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from Iceland indicating that the directive has been fully implemented into Icelandic law, nor is it in possession of any other information enabling it to conclude that the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the directive have been taken.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not brought into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with the directive.


title: Case T-289/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — H-O-T Servicecenter Nürnberg and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/21

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — H-O-T Servicecenter Nürnberg and Others v Commission
   (Case T-289/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 245/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: H-O-T Servicecenter Nürnberg GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany); H-O-T Servicecenter Schmölln GmbH & Co. KG (Schmölln, Germany); H-O-T Servicecenter Allgäu GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingerberg, Germany); and EB Härtetechnik GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg) (represented by: initially A. Reuter, C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, K. Kindereit, R. Busch, A. Hohler and T. Woltering, then A. Reuter, C. Bürger, T. Christner and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               4.

               H-O-T Servicecenter Nürnberg GmbH, H-O-T Servicecenter Schmölln GmbH & Co. KG, H-O-T Servicecenter Allgäu GmbH & Co. KG and EB Härtetechnik GmbH & Co. KG shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-548/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/2/EC — Environmental policy — Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) — Exchange and updating of data in electronic format — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-548/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/2/EC - Environmental policy - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) - Exchange and updating of data in electronic format - Incomplete transposition)
   2011/C 298/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and C. Egerer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulation and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-73/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy (Directive 95/46/EC — Scope — Processing and flow of tax data of a personal nature — Protection of natural persons — Freedom of expression)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy
   (Case C-73/07) (1)

   (Directive 95/46/EC - Scope - Processing and flow of tax data of a personal nature - Protection of natural persons - Freedom of expression)
   (2009/C 44/10)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tietosuojavaltuutettu

      Defendants: Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 3(1), 9 and 17 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Scope — Collection, publication, transfer and processing in a text-messaging service of public tax data relating to the amount of income and taxable assets of natural persons
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is to be interpreted as meaning that an activity in which data on the earned and unearned income and the assets of natural persons are:

                           —

                           collected from documents in the public domain held by the tax authorities and processed for publication,

                           —

                           published alphabetically in printed form by income bracket and municipality in the form of comprehensive lists,

                           —

                           transferred onward on CD-ROM to be used for commercial purposes, and

                           —

                           processed for the purposes of a text-messaging service whereby mobile telephone users can, by sending a text message containing details of an individual's name and municipality of residence to a given number, receive in reply information concerning the earned and unearned income and assets of that person,

                     must be considered as the ‘processing of personal data’ within the meaning of that provision.

               2)

               Article 9 of Directive 95/46 is to be interpreted as meaning that the activities referred to at points (a) to (d) of the first question, relating to data from documents which are in the public domain under national legislation, must be considered as activities involving the processing of personal data carried out ‘solely for journalistic purposes’, within the meaning of that provision, if the sole object of those activities is the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas. Whether that is the case is a matter for the national court to determine.

               3)

               Activities involving the processing of personal data such as those referred to at points (c) and (d) of the first question and relating to personal data files which contain solely, and in unaltered form, material that has already been published in the media, fall within the scope of application of Directive 95/46.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-475/08 P: Order of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Duta v Court of Justice (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Post as Legal Secretary — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/40

      Order of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Duta v Court of Justice
      (Case T-475/08 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Post as Legal Secretary - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
      (2010/C 288/77)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Krieg, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially by M. Schauss, then by A. Placco, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Radu Dutashall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case T-678/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014  — Slovakia v Commission

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/27

         Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Slovakia v Commission
   (Case T-678/14)
   (2014/C 448/36)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare invalid the Commission’s decision, contained in the letter of 15 July 2014, by which the Commission demands the Slovak Republic to make available the funds corresponding to the loss of traditional own resources; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the Commission’s lack of jurisdiction
               According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision. No provision of EU law confers jurisdiction on the Commission to act in the way it acted by issuing the contested decision or the jurisdiction, following the quantification of the amount of the loss of traditional own resources in the form of uncollected import duty, to order a Member State, which was not responsible for the assessment or collection of that duty, to make available the funds in the amount specified in the decision, which, the Slovak Republic submits, does not correspond to the stated loss.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty
               Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty. The obligation on the Slovak Republic, imposed on it by the contested decision, was, in the opinion of that Member State, not possible to predict before that decision was issued.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly
               Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision and, in issuing that decision, it also acted in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, did not exercise that jurisdiction correctly. First, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it demands payment of the funds from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that the loss of traditional own resources did not occur at all, or did not occur as a direct result of the events which the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. Secondly, the Commission infringed the Slovak Republic’s rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons were stated for the contested decision
               In connection with this plea, the Slovak Republic argues that there are several flaws in the statement of reasons for the contested decision, as a result of which it must be regarded as inadequate. This constitutes an infringement of basic procedural legislation and also fails to meet the requirements of legal certainty. According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission failed in the contested decision to state its legal basis. It also provided no explanation of the origin and basis of some of its findings. Lastly, the Slovak Republic submits that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is contradictory.


title: Case T-178/06: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2010 — Bavaria v Council

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/53

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2010 — Bavaria v Council
   (Case T-178/06) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/93
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-404/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — Marie Matoušková, court commissioner in inheritance proceedings v Misha Martinus and Elisabeth Jekaterina Martinus, represented by David Sedlák as trustee; Beno Jeriël Eljada Martinus

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — Marie Matoušková, court commissioner in inheritance proceedings v Misha Martinus and Elisabeth Jekaterina Martinus, represented by David Sedlák as trustee; Beno Jeriël Eljada Martinus
   (Case C-404/14)
   (2014/C 431/16)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marie Matoušková, court commissioner in inheritance proceedings

      Persons concerned by the inheritance proceedings: Misha Martinus and Elisabeth Jekaterina Martinus, represented by David Sedlák as trustee; Beno Jeriël Eljada Martinus

      Question referred

   If an inheritance settlement agreement concluded on behalf of a minor by his or her trustee requires the approval of a court in order to be valid, is that decision on the part of the court a measure within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) or a measure within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case C-253/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/25

         Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-253/08)
   (2008/C 223/39)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Yerrell and M Telles Romão, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the implementing of the directive expired on 1 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35.


title: Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10) (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Right of residence — Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised — Retention of Turkish nationality — Date of naturalisation)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)
   (Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Right of residence - Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised - Retention of Turkish nationality - Date of naturalisation)
   2012/C 151/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Defendants: Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence for members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised but has retained Turkish nationality — Date of naturalisation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State can still invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-83/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2015 — TUIfly GmbH v Wieland Volkert, Sonja Volkert, Linda Volkert

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2015 — TUIfly GmbH v Wieland Volkert, Sonja Volkert, Linda Volkert
   (Case C-83/15)
   (2015/C 213/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant and defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Respondents and applicants: Wieland Volkert, Sonja Volkert, Linda Volkert
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 23 April 2015.


9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/23
           subject to the levy for the purposes of the latter's       3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative,
           business , with the exception of sales of businesses ,          must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
           and                                                             to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in 90
                                                                           days ?
     ( b ) the turnover tax payable by the person subject to
           the levy on imports of goods for his business or on        (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
           purchases effected within the Community for the                imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton
           purposes of his business ?                                     yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No L 82 , 27 . 3 . 1992 ,
                                                                          p. 1 ).
2 . Does Article 33 of the sixth Directive prohibit the
     charging of a levy such as that described in the first
     question ?
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                     Removal from the register of Case C-55/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/46 )
                                                                      By order of 1 8 July 1996 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                      register of Case C-55/95 : Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo                   Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Tribunal Administrativo (2? Sec^ao — Contencioso
Tributario ), by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996,          (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil, SA v.
                          Fazenda Publica
                         ( Case C-322/96
                           ( 96/C 336/45 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-156/94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Supremo                     By order of 1 1 September 1996 the President of the Court of
Tribunal Administrativo ( 2? Sec^ao — Contencioso                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Tributario) ( Supreme Administrative Court (2nd Division —            from the register of Case C-156/94 : Commission of the
Fiscal Matters )) of 14 February 1996 , which was received at         European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom
the Court Registry on 2 October 1996 , for a preliminary              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Ireland, supported
ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil , SA          by the Republic of France .
v. Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
1 . Is the increase ( of 1% for each month that elapses
     without payment being made, following the 30th day
     after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
     the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 (') of 23 March 1992
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-115/96 ( )
     applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date                                    96/C 336/48 )
     falling after that 30th day ?
                                                                      By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Court of
2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a       from the register of Case C-l 55/96 ( reference for a
     distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in      preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta ( Customs
     circumstance like those in this case [see the facts proved]      Board ), Helsinki ): Application for an advance ruling by
     where the price of the imported goods, agreed as payable         Outokumpu Oy .
     in 90 days, was about 2,8 % greater than the price
     payable CAD ( cash against documents )?                          (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case C-419/08 P: Appeal brought on 23 September2008 by Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2008 in Case T-429/04 Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council, Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/30

         Appeal brought on 23 September2008 by Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2008 in Case T-429/04 Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council, Commission
   (Case C-419/08 P)
   (2008/C 285/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the Judgment of the Court of First Instance

               —

               Accept, by giving a final judgment itself, the application for compensation under Article 288 EC lodged before the Court of First Instance (CFI), or in the alternative refer the case back to the CFI

               —

               Order the Council and the Commission, in addition to paying their own costs, to pay all the costs occasioned by the appellants, in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the CFI

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be set aside for the following reasons:

               1)

               The CFI erred in law in interpreting and applying Community law with regard to the conditions under which the Community may incur non-contractual liability pursuant to Article 288(2) EC. First it is submitted that the contested judgement is vitiated by an error of law in so far as the CFI has totally failed to consider the illegal conduct complained of in the context of assessing the causal link and failed to investigate it in its legal context although it ought to have done so in order to determine the Community's legal responsibility. The CFI erred in law by failing to correctly assess, in accordance with Community law, the existence of a direct causal nexus between the conduct of the Community Institutions and the resulting damage suffered by the appellants and in finding that there was no sufficiently direct causal link between the conduct of the Community Institutions and the resulting damage on the grounds that either the appellants failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence and/or that the fault is attributed exclusively to the German Authorities.

               2)

               The CFI erred in law in refusing jurisdiction as regards the claims in relation to the amounts of EUR 118 058,46, EUR 277 939,37 and the legal fees, for which the national remedies have been exhausted following the legal right to settlement. As a result the appellants are left with no effective remedy and are penalised for exercising their legal right to settlement on the basis of the German Civil Code, despite the fact that the Community liability is involved in this case. In this context it is submitted that the CFI distorted the facts and evidence in holding that the appellants did not produce any evidence in support of, on one hand, the role of the Community and the Russian authorities and, on the other hand, the role of the criminal proceedings, in concluding a settlement.


title: Case C-212/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureş — Romania) — ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 4 — Effects provided for by legislation of a Member State on claims which were not pursued by means of insolvency proceedings — Forfeiture — Fiscal nature of the claim — No effect — Article 15 — Concept of ‘lawsuits pending’ — Enforcement proceedings — Excluded)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureş — Romania) — ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)
   (Case C-212/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 4 - Effects provided for by legislation of a Member State on claims which were not pursued by means of insolvency proceedings - Forfeiture - Fiscal nature of the claim - No effect - Article 15 - Concept of ‘lawsuits pending’ - Enforcement proceedings - Excluded))
   (2017/C 006/18)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Mureş

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt

      Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that provisions of domestic law of the Member State on the territory of which insolvency proceedings are opened which provide, in relation to a creditor who has not taken part in those proceedings, for the forfeiture of its right to pursue its claim or for the suspension of the enforcement of such a claim in another Member State come within its scope of application.

               2.

               The fiscal nature of the claim pursued by means of enforcement in a Member State other than that on the territory of which the insolvency proceedings are opened, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, has no bearing on the answer to be given to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015, p. 4.