title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 18 October 1996 in the case of Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum (Case C-37/97)

text:
22. 3 . 97               I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 94/9
dismissal. The award of retirement pension points,                                authorities in the Member States from charging
including those awarded where the worker concerned has                            applicants administrative fees for processing their
been dismissed, constitutes a condition of employment                             applications for support payments, if those
agreed between the employer and the worker by virtue of                           administrative fees correspond to the rates which are
the fact that they are bound by collective agreements. The                        otherwise usual in national law and are so low that
fact that, following his dismissal, a frontier worker                             they are not capable of deterring applicants from
receives unemployment benefit in another Member State                             applying for support payments ?
pursuant to Article 71 of Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/
71 (2) cannot constitute, for the employer ( that is to say,                ( b) If Question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative :
the supplementary retirement pension institution to which
he is affiliated and which carries out his contractual
obligations in the matter), a reason for depriving his                            Does Article 15 ( 3 ) of the said Council Regulation
former employee of the contractual advantages agreed.                             infringe higher-ranking Community law, in particular
Although the discrimination in question results from                              the principle of cooperation in good faith under
collective agreements and not from legislation, it                                Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the principle of
nevertheless represents an infringement of Community law                          proportionality under the third paragraph of Article 3 b
by the defendant State, since that State has not only                             of the EC Treaty, and the principle of subsidiarity
accepted the existence of such discrimination within                              under the second paragraph of Article 3b of the EC
supplementary retirement pension schemes but has                                  Treaty ?
approved those agreements and made them generally
compulsory;, by Article L 731-5 of the French Social
Security Code, membership of a supplementary retirement
pension scheme is compulsory for all employed persons
subject to a compulsory old-age pension scheme . Although
the management of supplementary retirement pension                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig
schemes is in principle left to the social partners, such                   Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court
schemes are in fact based on agreements between the                         of 18 October 1996 in the case of Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen v.
social partners and the public authorities, which intervene                           Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum
actively in them, especially as regards the maintenance of
financial equilibrium.                                                                                ( Case C-37/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/18 )
The fact that the French supplementary retirement pension
schemes 'validate' periods of unemployment in France for
which benefit is paid to frontier workers who have lost                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
their job in another Member State does not eliminate or                     European Communities by an order of the First Chamber
make up for the discrimination applied, to their detriment,                 of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht
to frontier workers residing in another Member State .                      ( Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court) of 18 October
                                                                            1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
(') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .         27 January 1997, for a peliminary ruling in the case of
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .      Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen v. Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirt
                                                                            schaft Husum on the following questions :
                                                                            ( a ) Is Article 30a of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2066/
                                                                                92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation ( EEC )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig                            No 805/68 on the common organization of the market
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court                          in beef and veal and repealing Regulation ( EEC )
of 18 October 1996 in the case of Hilmar Kellinghusen v.                          No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the
             Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel                              special premium for beef producers and Regulation
                             ( Case C-36/97)
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums
                                                                                for maintaining suckler cows ( OJ No L 215 , 30 . 7.
                               ( 97/C 94/17)                                      1992, p. 49 ) to be interpreted as prohibiting the
                                                                                authorities in the Member States from charging
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                                applicants administrative fees for processing their
the European Communities by an order of the First                                 applications for aid, if those administrative fees
Chamber of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsge                            correspond to the rates which are otherwise usual in
richt ( Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court) of                               national law and are so low that they are not capable
18 October 1996, which was received at the Court                                  of deterring applicants from applying for aid ?
Registry on 27 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hilmar Kellinghusen v. Amt fur Land- und                        ( b ) If Question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative :
Wasserwirtschaft Kiel on the following questions :
( a ) Is Article 15 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/                  Does Article 30a of the said Council Regulation
       92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for                       infringe higher-ranking Community law, in particular
       producers of certain arable crops ( OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7.                   the principle of cooperation in good faith under
       1992, p. 12 ) to be interpreted as prohibiting the                         Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the principle of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            22 . 3 . 97
     proportionality under the third paragraph of Article 3 b                 ( a ) the tariff proposal is drawn up on the basis of
     of the EC Treaty, and the principle of subsidiarity                            criteria which are described by the national
    -under the second paragraph of Article 3b of the EC                             legislature as being in the public interest and
     Treaty ?                                                                       defined in abstract terms by Law No 298/74 and
                                                                                in detail by Presidential Decree No 56/78 , but in
                                                                                practice refer to the characteristics of a 'typical
                                                                                undertaking' specified by Decree No 56/78
                                                                                (Articles 3 and 4 ) which no longer corresponds to
                                                                                the realities of the market in question;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of
30 December 1996 in the case of Autotrasporti Librandi                        ( b ) the public authority's powers ( which have never
  snc against Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali srl                       been exercised ) to refer the committee's proposal
                                                                                back to it and to adopt tariffs ex officio if the
                          Case C-38/97 )
                                                                                committee's new proposal is not considered
                           ( 97/C 94/ 19 )                                          satisfactory are strictly confined to merely
                                                                                examining whether the proposal is in accordance
                                                                                with the criteria delegated by the legislature in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1974 ( Article 53 of Law No 298/74 ) to secondary
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice                            implementing legislation adopted , in 1978
di Pace di Genova of 30 December 1996 in the case of                                (Presidential Decree No 56/78 ) and never since
Autotrasporti Librandi snc against Cuttica Spedizioni e                             updated;
Servizi Internazionali srl on the following questions :
1 . Is national legislation which provides for mandatory                      ( c ) the conditions for setting the mandatory tariff are
     tariffs for the carriage of goods by road to be                                fixed in that way and, more importantly, the
     approved and brought into force by the public                                  public authority's review of the legality of the
     authority on the basis of a proposal from a committee                          tariff is restricted to checking whether the tariff
     on which interested economic operators are in the                              proposed by the committee corresponds to the
     majority ( Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994 )                             economic and technical data of a 'typical
     compatible with Articles 3 ( f) and (g), 5 , 85 and 86 of                      undertaking' which is not representative of the
     the Treaty, as interpreted by the judgment of the Court                        market in question;
     of Justice of 5 October 1995 in Case 96/94 Centro Ser
     vizi Spediporto v. Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo H ?
                                                                              ( d ) in that context the public authority is given the
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is a                         task of ensuring that the tariff determined in that
     national provision ( Article 3 of Decree Law No 82/93                          way enables haulage undertakings to obtain a
    transposed by Law No 162/93 ) which extends                                     return described as 'fair' ( Article 52 of Law
     mandatory tariffs in the field of contracts for road                           No 298/74 ) but based on rigid and totally obsolete
     haulage services to cover other types of contract                              legislative data which cannot be reviewed by the
     relating to different services, such as, in particular,                        public authority even though they are now
     contracts whereby a contractor undertakes to achieve                           divorced from reality and consequently do not
     a particular result ( contratti di appalto ) and/or                            reflect the actual cost of the service provided by
    contracts for hire, compatible with Articles 3 ( f) and                         road-haulage undertakings ?
     (g ), 5 , 85 and 86 of the Treaty ?
3 . Does the concept of 'general interest' referred to by
                                                                       6 . In the alternative, the Court is asked to clarify what
    the Court of Justice in the judgments in Reiff (2 ) and
                                                                              concept of 'collective agreement' allows the national
    Delta correspond to the concept of 'public interest'
                                                                              court to decide that there is no tariff agreement
     mentioned by the Court, in a similar legal situation, in
                                                                              contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty.
    the judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto v. Spedizio
     ni Marittima del Golfo ( 3 )?
                                                                       ( 1 ) Case C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto; judgment of
4. Is that concept ('general interest' and/or 'public                        5 October 1995 ( OJ No C 299, 11 . 11 . 1995 , p. 6 ).
                                                                       (2 ) Case C-185/91 Reiff [ 1993 ] ECR I, p. 5801 and Case C-153/
     interest') defined by Community law or left to the                      93 Delta [ 1994] ECR I, p . 2517.
    competence of the individual Member States ?                       ( 3 ) Case C-96/94 ( see footnote 1 ).
5 . In particular, can that concept cover a national
     situation     such  as    that  described   in   the  main
    proceedings in which :


title: Case C-135/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/27

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
      (Case C-135/16)
      (2016/C 211/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

         Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

         Question referred

      Does the European Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 (Commission Decision of 25.11.2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users, C(2014)8786 final) (1) breach the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as the Commission qualifies the limitation of the EEG-surcharge as aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU?

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.


title: Case C-391/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/36/EC — Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies — Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-391/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/36/EC - Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies - Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)
   2011/C 103/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take or to communicate within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-499/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf) — Hans Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG (Transfer of undertakings — Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees' rights — Collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/21

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf) — Hans Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-499/04) (1)

   (Transfer of undertakings - Directive 77/187/EEC - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer)
   (2006/C 131/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hans Werhof

      Defendant: Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88) — Obligations of the transferee with regard to retention of more favourable pay conditions resulting from a collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as not precluding, in a situation where the contract of employment refers to a collective agreement binding the transferor, that the transferee, who is not party to such an agreement, is not bound by collective agreements subsequent to the one which was in force at the time of the transfer of the business.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.


title: Case T-223/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark DriCloud — Earlier international word marks ICLOUD — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Submission of evidence out of time — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)
   (Case T-223/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark DriCloud - Earlier international word marks ICLOUD - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Submission of evidence out of time - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Massive Bionics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Galindo Martens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 339/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Massive Bionics.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Massive Bionics, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-151/06: Action brought on  9 June 2006  — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/36

         Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission
   (Case T-151/06)
   (2006/C 178/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               declare the contested decision invalid to the extent the Commission did not treat sales via ASMP consistently with the treatment of those sales in the initial anti-dumping investigation of silicon from Russia, and order the European Commission to recalculate the dumping margin (and thus the amount to be refunded) accordingly;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 (1) imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon to the Community from two Russian exporting producers, related to the applicant: Sual-Kremny-Urals LLC and ZAO Kremny. Because the applicant believed that the dumping margin on the basis of which anti-dumping duties were paid had been eliminated, it lodged three requests for reimbursement of the duties with regard to subsequent imports.
   In the contested decision, the requests were partially granted. The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision to the extent it reflects adjustment made without justification, with the result that the calculated dumping margin is more than de minimis, and does not authorize the national customs authorities to grant the full reimbursement requested of anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant on imports of silicon originating in Russia.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes, first, a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Council Regulation No 384/96 (2) (the Basic Regulation), in particular Article 11(9), as well as a violation of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in finding that there were changed circumstances requiring it to depart from the methodology relied on in the original investigation in relation to sales made via the applicant.
   Second, the applicant invokes a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 253 EC with regard to the assessment of the existence of a single economic entity as between the applicant and the Russian factories and the adjustment for an agent`s commission.
   Third, the applicant invokes a breach of the Basic Regulation as regards the deduction of an agent's commission, and in particular Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as last modified by Regulation No 2238/2000 (3). According to the applicant, Article 2(10)(i), as modified by Regulation No 1972/2002 (4), is not applicable since the refund procedure at hand would concern the continuation of the original procedure. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as modified by Regulation No 1972/2002.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating Russia (OJ L 339, p. 3).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 of 9 October 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 of 5 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on the protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 305, p. 1).


title: Case C-389/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 8 September 2008 — Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad, other party: Belgacom NV

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 8 September 2008 — Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad, other party: Belgacom NV
   (Case C-389/08)
   (2008/C 285/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Grondwettelijk Hof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Other Party: Belgacom NV
   Question referred
   Can Article 12 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (1) be interpreted as allowing the competent legislature of a Member State, acting in the capacity of the national regulatory authority, to determine generally and on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the universal service provider — previously the sole provider — that the provision of universal service may represent an ‘unfair burden’ for those undertakings designated as universal service providers?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.


C 71/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    20.3.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-319/02 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-191/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/77)                                                            (2004/C 71/79)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                            (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          By order of 1 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
T-319/02: H.O. Sport Inc. v Office for the Harmonisation of
                                                                          Case T-191/03: Alexandre Tilgenkamp v Commission of the
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-180/03 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-296/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/78)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/80)
                  (Language of the Case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 4 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of                      By order of 15 December 2003 the President of the Fourth
Case T-180/03: Auna Operadores de Telecomunicaciones S.A.                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
and Others v Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-296/03: Proteco srl v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/7

         Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Adviesbureau Ehcon B.V. against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-140/04)
   (2004/C 146/10)
   language of the case Dutch
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Adviesbureau Ehcon B.V., established in Reeuwijk (Netherlands) represented by M.A. Goedkoop.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Community to pay compensation for the loss of euro 158 400 which the applicant suffered as a result of the failure to award the contract, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the European Community to pay compensation for the loss of income suffered by the applicant, amounting to euro 60 000, as a result of the fact that, owing to the rejection, it was unable to exploit and extend its expertise, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the European Community to pay compensation for the consequential losses suffered by the applicant as a result of the lost chance to acquire a renewal contract. The consequential losses resulting from the reduced chance of a renewal contract are estimated at 10 % of the net income from the renewal contract, thus at euro 25 500;

               —

               in the alternative, order the European Community to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the loss of the chance of the award of a contract in the amount of euro 26 400, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the European Community to pay compensation for the costs which the applicant has incurred in submitting its tender, amounting to euro 10 000, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the European Communities to pay compensation for the costs which the applicant has incurred in obtaining evidence and bringing the matter before the European Ombudsman, amounting to euro 40 000, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the European Community to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In September 1996 the applicant submitted a tender for a public contract from the Commission in the context of services in relation to the Directive concerning water intended for human consumption (1). The applicant was not, however, selected.
   According to the applicant, the Commission acted contrary to the requirements of transparency which must be observed in invitations to tender. The applicant submits that the European Ombudsman, after receiving a complaint from the applicant, came to the same conclusion in that respect.
   The applicant also submits that the Commission acted contrary to Article 3 of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (2). According to the applicant, the Commission infringed the principles of proper administration by treating the various tenderers differently.
   According to the applicant, the Commission also infringed Article 12(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC by failing to inform the applicant of the reasons for the rejection within a period of 15 days after receipt of the written request in that regard.
   The applicant also submits that if the Commission had acted in accordance with the rules of proper administration it would have been admitted to the award phase. In that case, according to the applicant, it would also have received a contract.
   The applicant also claims that the Commission was obliged, under Articles 16 and 17(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC, no later than 48 days after the award of the contract, to send a notice concerning the outcome of the tender procedure to the Publications Office of the European Communities.
   Finally, the applicant states that the Commission has attempted to mislead it.

      (1)  Open invitation to tender No XI.D.1 (OJ 1996 C 232, p. 35).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 January 1996 in Case C-130/91 REV II ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Others v. the Commission of the European Communities (Application for revision - Inadmissibility)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 77/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Netherlands ( Agents : J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                             Oosterkamp ) — application for a declaration that, by
                                                                      adopting on 19 September 1990 an order derogating from
                      of 11 January 1996                              the Margarinebesluit without notifying it to the
in Case C-480/93 P: Zunis Holding SA and Others v.                    Commission at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of the
        Commission of the European Communities (')                    Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8
(Appeals — Competition — Merger control —                             of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
Admissibility of an action for annulment of a decision                down a procedure for the provision of information in the
              refusing to re-open the procedure)                      field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ No L 109,
                                                                      1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC
                            ( 96/C 77/04 )                            of 22 March 1988 ( OJ No L 81 , 1988 , p. 75 ), — the Courth
                                                                      ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, acting for the
                (Language of the case: English)                       President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A.
                                                                      Schockweiler, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm
                                                                      ( Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General : D. Ruíz-Jarabo
In Case C-480/93 P, Zunis Holding SA, Finan SRL and                   Colomer; Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Massinvest SA ( represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and                Administrator, gave a judgment on 11 January 1996 , in
Stanley Crossick ) — appeal against the judgment of the               which it :
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( Second Chamber ) of 28 October 1993 in Case T-83/92
                                                                      1 . Declares that, by adopting on 19 September 1990 an
Zunis Holding and Others v. Commission [ 1 993 ] ECR
11-1169, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                order derogating from the Margarinebesluit without
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                       notifying it to the Commission at the drafting stage, the
European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and                       Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
Richard Lyal ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of                  obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive
D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber, J. -P.                         83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
                                                                           procedure for the provision ofinformation in the field of
Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
                                                                           technical standards and regulations.
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 11 January 1996 , in which it:                    2 . Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
                                                                           costs .
1 . Dismisses the appeal.
                                                                      (') Of No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
2 . Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 January 1996
                                                                      in Case C-130/91 REV II ISAE/VP ( Instituto Social de
                                                                      Apoio ao Emprego e a Valorização Profissional) and Others
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      v. the Commission of the European Communities ( l )
                         ( Sixth Chamber )                                     (Application for revision — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/06 )
                      of 11 January 1996
in Case      C-273/94: Commission of the              European
      Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( 1 )                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Obligation to give prior notification under Directive                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                            83/189/EEC)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 96/C 77/05 )
                                                                      In Case C-130/91 REV II : ISAE/VP ( Instituto Social de
                                                                      Apoio ao Emprego e a Valorização Profissional ) and
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Interdata ( Centro de Processamento de Dados Limidada )
                                                                      ( represented by Agostinho Amado Rodrigues ) v. the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for revision of the order
                                                                      of the Court of Justice of 14 January 1992 in Case C-130/91
                                                                      ISAE/VP and Interdata v. Commission [ 1992] ECR 1-69, the
In Case C-273/94 : Commission of the European                         Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Communities ( Agent: H. van Lier ) v. Kingdom of the                  C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/4             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.                Regulation, the skipper is presumed to be unaware of
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,                that status, unless the authorities taking action
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann,                         concerning the infringement prove otherwise.
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment          (>) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
on 16 January 1996 in which it:
I. Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible.
2 . Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                                             ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber)
(!) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                                of 11 January 1996
                                                                     in Case C-89/95 P: Mr D v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1 )
                                                                     (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              ( 96/C 77/08 )
                      ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
                     of 18 January 1996
in Case C-276/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Kriminal- og Skifteret i Frederikshavn ): criminal                         published in the European Court Reports)
               proceedings against Finn Ohrt ( 1 )
(Definition of vessel engaged in a fisheries inspection —            In Case C-89/95 P: Mr D ( represented by Eric Boigelot) —
  Obligations of the skipper of the vessel to be inspected)          appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 77/07 )                            the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of
                                                                     26 January 1995 in Case T-549/93 [ 1995 ] ECR-SC 11-43
                                                                     between D and the Commission, seeking to have that
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Maria Alves Vieira ) — the Court ( First Chamber),
         published in the European Court Reports)                    composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
                                                                     P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
In Case C-276/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     11 January 1996 , the operative part of which is as
of the EEC Treaty from the Kriminal- og Skifteret ( Criminal,        follows :
Bankruptcy and Probate Court), Frederikshavn ( Denmark ),
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
before that court against Finn Ohrt — on the interpretation          1 . The appeal is dismissed.
of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
No 1382/87 of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules                2 . The appellant shall pay the costs.
concerning the inspection of fishing vessels ( OJ No L 132,
1987, p. 11 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber), composed of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 18 January 1996 , in which it rules :
1 . Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1382/87              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
     of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules concerning           Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ),
     the inspection of fishing vessels must be interpreted as        Thessaloniki, by a decision of that court of 28 February
     meaning that every inspection vessel, regardless of type             1995 in the case of Sigfried Klattner v. Greek State
     or dimensions, must display the identification symbol or                                 ( Case C-389/95 )
     pennant described in Annex I to that Regulation.                                             ( 96/C 77/09 )
2 . The obligation to comply with the orders of a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     representative of the competent authority of a Member           European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
     State, under Article 3 of the Regulation, presupposes           Court of First Instance, Thessaloniki, of 28 February 1995 ,
     that the skipper of the vessel to be inspected is aware of      which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
     the status of that representative. In the absence of the         1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sigfried Klattner
     symbol or pennant required by Article 2 of the                  v. Greek State on the following questions:


title: Case T-495/15: Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/40

         Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)
   (Case T-495/15)
   (2015/C 354/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus (Pulpí, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spanish Oranges, SL (Castellón, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN’ — Application for registration No 11 290 293

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2015 in Case R 871/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision;

               —

               refuse the application of the trademark at issue for all goods covered in classes 29 and 31;

               —

               order the Intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

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


title: Case T-102/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Heli-Flight v EASA (Civil aviation — Application for approval of flight conditions for a Robinson R66 helicopter — Rejection decision of the EASA — Action for annulment — Scope of the Board of Appeal’s review — Scope of the Court’s review — Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Heli-Flight v EASA

   (Case T-102/13) (1)

   ((Civil aviation - Application for approval of flight conditions for a Robinson R66 helicopter - Rejection decision of the EASA - Action for annulment - Scope of the Board of Appeal’s review - Scope of the Court’s review - Action for failure to act - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 046/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (Reichelsheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: T. Masing and C. Eckart, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the decision of the EASA of 13 January 2012 rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions submitted for a Robinson R66 helicopter (serial number 0034); secondly, application for a declaration that the EASA failed to act concerning the processing of the applicant’s applications of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012 concerning that helicopter and, thirdly, claim that the EASA should make good the damage that the applicant considers it has suffered because of that rejection decision and that alleged failure to act.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2002 in Case T-239/00: SCI UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Repayment of import duties — Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Meaning of "special situation")

text:
C 202/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.8.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and R. Wain-
                                                                          wright): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                         of 13 June 2002                                  decision of 29 June 2000 (C (2000) 1684 final) to the effect
                                                                          that repayment to the applicant of import duties is not justified,
in Case T-232/00: Chef Revival USA Inc. v Office for                      the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                       Designs)(OHIM) (1)                                 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                          on 4 July 2002, in which it:
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
 proceedings — Rule 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)                  1.    Dismisses the application;
                         (2002/C 202/31)                                  2.    Orders the applicant to pay the defendant’s costs in addition to
                                                                                its own.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
In Case T-232/00, Chef Revival USA Inc., established in Lodi,
New Jersey (United States), represented by N. Jenkins, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)(OHIM) (Agent: A. von Mühlendahl), defendant, the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) being Joachı́n Massagué Marı́n, of Sabadell
(Spain): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2000 (Case
R 181/1999-3), as corrected by corrigendum of 6 July 2000,                                         of 25 June 2002
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio       in Case T-311/00: British American Tobacco (Invest-
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-            ments) Ltd v Commission of the European Communi-
ment on 13 June 2002, in which it:                                                                       ties (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and           (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
      Designs) of 26 June 2000 (Case R 181/1999-3), as rectified          Commission documents — Whether documents exist — No
      by corrigendum of 6 July 2000;                                      need to proceed to judgment — Costs caused unreasonably
                                                                                or vexatiously)
2.    Orders the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/33)
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-311/00, British American Tobacco (Investments)
                                                                          Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented
                           of 4 July 2002                                 by S. Crosby, Solicitor, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, X. Lewis and M. Shotter):
in Case T-239/00: SCI UK Ltd v Commission of the                          Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
                   European Communities (1)                               7 September 2000 refusing to grant access to certain docu-
                                                                          ments concerning preparatory work relating to the proposal
(Repayment of import duties — Article 13 of Regulation                    for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
     (EEC) No 1430/79 — Meaning of ‘special situation’)                   (COM(1999) 594 final), presented by the Commission on
                                                                          7 January 2000, on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 202/32)                                  and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                          the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (OJ 2000 C 150 E, p. 43), the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                          Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
                                                                          and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
In Case T-239/00, SCI UK Ltd, established in Irvine (United               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 2002, in which
Kingdom), represented by L. Allen, Barrister, v Commission of             it:


title: Case C-431/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (España) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (España) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) v José Blanco Marqués
   (Case C-431/16)
   (2016/C 402/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Defendant: José Blanco Marqués

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is a rule of national law, such that contained in Article 6.4 of Royal Decree 1646/1972 of 23 June, which establishes that the 20 % supplement to the regulatory base for pensioners who have a total permanent incapacity to perform their normal occupation and who are over 55 years old ‘shall be suspended during the period in which the worker obtains employment’, to be regarded as a rule to prevent overlapping within the meaning of Article 12, Article 46a, Article 46b and 46d of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and Articles 5, 53, 54 and 55 of Regulation No 883/2004, (2) in view of the fact that the Spanish Supreme Court has held that the incompatibility established in that role of national law applies not only to employment but also to receipt of a retirement pension?

               2)

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, are Article 46a(3)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 53(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that a rule to prevent the overlapping of the benefit at issue and a pension from another European Union State or Switzerland may be applied only if there is a rule of national law of the rank of statute that expressly provides that Social Security invalidity, old-age or survivors’ benefits, such as that at issue here, are incompatible with benefits or income acquired abroad by the beneficiary? Or may the rule to prevent overlapping be applied to pensions from another European Union State or Switzerland, in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 5 of Regulation No 883/2004, even when there is no express legal provision, but when the national case-law has adopted an interpretation which supposes that the benefit at issue is incompatible with a retirement pension under Spanish law?

               3)

               If the answer to the previous question supports application of the Spanish rule to prevent overlapping (as developed by case-law) to the case at issue, even failing any express law concerning benefits or income acquired abroad, is the 20 % supplement, which, under Spanish Social Security legislation, is received by workers who are recognised as having total permanent incapacity to perform their normal occupation and are over 55 years old, as has been described, to be considered the same as or different from a retirement pension under the Swiss Social Security system? Does the definition of the various branches of Social Security in Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 have Community scope or must the definition given by the national legislation be followed for every specific benefit? If the definition has Community scope, is the 20 % supplement to the regulatory base of the total permanent incapacity benefit, which is the subject matter of these proceedings, to be regarded as an invalidity benefit or an unemployment benefit, in light of the fact that it supplements the pension for total permanent incapacity to perform the normal occupation owing to the difficulty people more than 55 years old have in finding other employment, so that payment of that supplement is suspended if the beneficiary does work?

               4)

               If the two benefits are considered to be of the same kind and considering that contribution periods in another State have not been taken into account for the determining of either the amount of the Spanish incapacity pension or its supplement, is the 20 % supplement to the regulatory base of the Spanish total permanent incapacity pension to be regarded as a benefit to which the rules to prevent overlapping are applicable, inasmuch as its amount does not depend on the length of periods of insurance or residence, within the meaning of Article 46b, third indent, of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 54(2)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004? May the rule to prevent overlapping be applied even though that benefit is not listed in Part D of Annex IV to Regulation No 1408/71 or in Annex IX of Regulation No 883/2004?

               5)

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is the rule in Article 46a(3)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 53(3)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004, according to which the Spanish Social Security benefit could be reduced only ‘within the limit of the amount of the benefits payable under the legislation’ of another State, in this case Switzerland?

               6)

               If the two benefits are considered to be of different kinds and given that Switzerland appears to apply no rule to prevent overlapping, under Article 46c of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 5 of Regulation No 883/2004, may the whole reduction be applied to the 20 % supplement to the Spanish total permanent incapacity pension or must the reduction be made on a split or pro-rata basis? In either case, must the limit referred to in Article 46a(3)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 53(3)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004, according to which the Spanish Social Security benefit may be reduced only ‘within the limit of the amount of the benefits payable under the legislation’ of another State, in this case Switzerland, be applied?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case T-234/07: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Koninklijke Grolsch v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Dutch beer market — Decision finding a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC — Applicant found to have participated in the infringement — Insufficient evidence — No proper statement of reasons)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Koninklijke Grolsch v Commission
   (Case T-234/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Dutch beer market - Decision finding a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC - Applicant found to have participated in the infringement - Insufficient evidence - No proper statement of reasons)
   2011/C 311/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Grolsch NV (Enschede, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Biesheuvel and J. de Pree, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Bouquet, S. Noë and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and, subsequently, A. Bouquet and S Noë, assisted by M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case No COMP/B-2/37.766 — Dutch beer market) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case No COMP/B-2/37.766 –Dutch beer market) in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Grolsch NV;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-315/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Vince v EUIPO (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Vince v EUIPO (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)
   (Case T-315/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 006/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dale Vince (Stroud, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 1442/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELECTRIC HIGHWAY as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Dale Vince to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-17/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-17/09)
   (2009/C 82/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission's decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tender VT/2008/019 — EMPL EESSI for the ‘Informatics services and products in the contest of the EESSI (Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information) project’ (1) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 30 October 2008 and all further related decisions including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 883 703,5 EUR;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant's decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender VT/2008/019 — EMPL CAD A/17543 for the informatics services and products in the context of the EESSI (Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information) project and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the winning tenderer enjoyed a privileged treatment from the Commission in the context of numerous other contracts and that it was favoured in the case of the present call for tenders. Further the applicant claims that it was systematically discriminated by the defendant in the same context.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to observe the rules concerning the exclusion criteria of the tender specifications and therefore infringed Articles 93 and 94 of the financial regulation (2) and Articles 133a and 134 of its implementing rules as well as Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC (3).
   Third, the applicant claims that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in evaluation of the applicant's tender by the Evaluation Committee.
   Fourth, the applicant contends that the defendant based its evaluation of the applicant's tender on general and arbitrary considerations, failed to motivate its decision and in this context committed several manifest errors of assessment.

      (1)  OJ 2008/S 111-148231.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).


title: Case C-389/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 348/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.12.2001
      States or of persons who are not resident in such areas,                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      despite fulfilling the same age requirement, the Italian                Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     down basic safety standards for the protection of the
      Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty.                                    health of workers and the general public against the
                                                                              dangers arising from ionising radiation (1), the Portuguese
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              Articles 55(1) of that Directive,
                                                                        —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive,
Granting advantageous admission charges only to Italian
nationals constitutes a restriction on the right to have access
to services to which tourists visiting Italian archaeological and       —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
cultural sites are entitled.
The granting of advantageous admission charges to certain
categories of visitors, in this case to those aged over 60 or           Pleas in law and main arguments
65 years, on the basis of their residence within the municipality
in which the cultural site is located, constitutes indirect
discrimination on grounds of nationality since in the end it
affects mainly non-Italian Community tourists, whose                    The provisions of the third paragraph of Article 161 and the
exclusion from benefiting from the lower charges constitutes            first paragraph of Article 192 of the EAEC Treaty require
the disguised objective.                                                Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose
                                                                        directives addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                        expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. Despite that
                                                                        period having expired (13 May 2000) the Portuguese Republic
The lower charges offered by the municipal museums thus                 has still not brought into force the provisions necessary to
infringe Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as they           transpose Directive 96/29/Euratom into its legal system.
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 314, p. 20.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                             Republic
                          (Case C-389/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                         (2001/C 348/29)                                                            Republic
                                                                                (Case C-390/01)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                         (2001/C 348/30)
on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic as brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by António Catiros, acting as Agent, with an
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and            Guerrero, Wagner Centre.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by order of that court of 31 October 1994, in the case of Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd against the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Case C-110/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95             I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by order of that              Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
court of 31 October 1994, in the case of Yamanouchi                      3 February 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Pharmaceutical Co . Ltd against the Comptroller-General of               Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                Patents, Designs and Trade Marks                                                  Abbas Radiom
                           ( Case C-1 10/95 )                                                   ( Case C-1 1 1 /95 )
                             ( 95/C 159/32 )                                                      ( 95 /C 159/33
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Justice , Chancery Division , Patents Court, of 31 October               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
1994 , which was received at the Court Registry on 3 April               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 3 February 1995 , which
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Yamanouchi                was received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1994 , for a
Pharmaceutical Co . Ltd against the Comptroller-General of               preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, on the following                       Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
question:                                                                Abbas Radiom, on the following questions :
In the case of an application for a certificate under Council            1. (1)     In Article 8 of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning                     25 February 1964 on the coordination of special
the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for                   measures concerning the movement and residence of
medicinal products ( 1 ) in a particular Member State ( in casu,             foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
the United Kingdom ) in circumstances where:                                 public policy, public security or public health do the
                                                                             words 'the same legal remedies . . . as are available to
— a medicinal product was ( on 2 January 1993 ) the subject                  nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the
      of a first marketing authorization in the Community ( in               administration' refer ( a ) to specific remedies available in
      casu, in France ) which was obtained pursuant to Council               respect of decisions concerning entry by nationals of the
      Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the                          State concerned ( in casu, an appeal to an immigration
      approximation of provisions laid down by law,                          adjudicator) or „( b ) do they refer only to remedies
      regulation or administrative action relating to                        available in respect of acts of the administration
      proprietary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( as amended ) after              generally ( in casu, an application for judicial review)?
      1 January 1985 ,
                                                                             (2)    If the answer to ( 1 ) is (a ), do the words quoted
— the medicinal product was ( on 2 January 1993 )                            from Article 8 of Directive 64/22 1/EEC refer only to the
      protected by a valid basic patent in the Member                        legal remedies available to nationals of the State
      State,                                                                 concerned in the same circumstances ( in casu, refusal of
                                                                             entry on grounds of national security), or do they also
— at the date of submission of such application, marketing                   refer to the specific remedies available in analogous or
      authorization in the Member State had yet to be                        similar   circumstances      to   nationals   of  the   State
      obtained,                                                              concerned ; and, if so, how similar or analogous must the
                                                                             circumstances be ?
— application for a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1
      of Article 19 was submitted to the relevant national
      authority (namely the UK Patent Office ) within six                2 . In the light of the answer to question 1 , where a
      months of 2 January 1993 , as laid down in paragraph 2                 Community national is refused entry into the United
      of Article 19 ,                                                        Kingdom on grounds of national security does Article 8
                                                                             of Directive 64/22 1 /EEC require that national to have a
                                                                             right of appeal to an immigration adjudicator if, on the
is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92, and in particular
                                                                             correct construction of the relevant provisions of
Article 19 thereof, to be interpreted so as to allow the grant
                                                                             national law, a British national refused entry to the
of an SPC to the patentee in that Member State or must the
                                                                             United Kingdom on grounds of national security has a
provisions of Articles 3 ( b ), 8 and 9 concerning a valid
                                                                             right of appeal for the purpose of establishing that he is a
marketing authorization in the Member State also be                          British national and is therefore entitled to enter the
complied with ?
                                                                             United Kingdom irrespective of whether his presence in
                                                                             the United Kingdom is undesirable for reasons of
(M OJ No L 182 , 2 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                                      national security ?
( 2 ) OJ No 22 , 9 . 2 . 1965 , p . 369 .
                                                                         3.  Do the opening words of Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive
                                                                             64/22 1/EEC ('where there is no right of appeal to a court


title: Case C-216/10 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 2010 by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/26

         Appeal brought on 6 May 2010 by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-216/10 P)
   2010/C 179/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07 Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v. OHIM — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL (The Judgement under Appeal), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks & Designs) (OHIM) of 7 June 2007 upholding the decision of the Opposition Division, by which the opposition directed against Community trademark application 002 933 356 was rejected;

               —

               following the conclusion of the written proceedings, schedule an oral hearing before the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               the General Court incorrectly upheld the Board of Appeal's assessment pertaining to the criteria of likelihood of confusion pursuant to article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trademark Regulation (1) (CTMR);

               —

               the General Court was incorrect in not dealing with the appellant's opposition based upon article 8(5) CTMR;

               —

               the General Court infringed art 75 CTMR when it held that the Board of Appeal was entitled not to conduct a full examination of the appellant's remaining arguments, in particular those pertaining to the distinctiveness of the appellant's prior trademark registration, ‘for reasons of economy of procedure’;

               —

               the judgment under appeal breaches article 76 CTMR;

               —

               the General Court was wrong when it accepted that the fact that OHIM did not notify the appellant of the change in the owner of the Community Trademark applications, thus depriving it of the opportunity to comment on the change of party, did not give rise to a serious breach of the appellant's right to a fair hearing;

               —

               the General Court issued an Order for costs which was not in compliance with the pertinent provisions of European Union law.

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


title: Case C-250/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș
   (Case C-250/12)
   2012/C 243/12
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Călin Ion Plavoșin

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș

      Question referred

   In the case where a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

               (a)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

               (b)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

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


title: Case C-254/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 26 May 2014  — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 26 May 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika
   (Case C-254/14)
   2014/C 253/25
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju

      Defendant: Đuro Vladika

      Question referred

   What are the principles on the basis of which, under EU law, consumers pay for water? That is to say, are consumers required to pay only for the water which they have consumed, as evidenced by the meter reading, at the price of the water alone, or must they pay a price for the water which will reimburse the costs relating to the activity carried out by the municipal operators (operations, on-going maintenance, management of the infrastructure, employees’ salaries, etc.)?


title: Case T-59/07: Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Polimeri Europa v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/48

         Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Polimeri Europa v Commission
   (Case T-59/07)
   (2007/C 95/97)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and F.M. Moretti, avvocati)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               annul the decision, in whole or in part, with all the consequences entailed for the amount of the penalty;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the penalty;

               —

               in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs, fees and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 29 November 2006 (C(2006) final in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber (BR) and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber (ESBR); ‘the Decision’), the Commission declared that Polimeri Europa, together with other undertakings, has infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing price targets for BR/ESBR products, sharing customers through non-aggression pacts and exchanging sensitive commercial information.
   In support of its action challenging that measure, Polimeri Europa alleges serious breaches of procedure and infringement of its rights of defence. In particular, the applicant notes the following conduct on the part of the Commission: (i) its use of incorrect rules in applying the Leniency Notice; (ii) its unjustified and inexplicable adoption of a second statement of objections, thereby distorting the role of such a statement; (iii) its attribution to Polimeri Europa — first stated in the Decision — of sole liability for facts relating to a period during which Syndial SpA, not Polimeri Europa, had been managing the business; (iv) its introduction in the Decision of an assessment of the market that was new and different as compared with the assessment previously used.
   The applicant also alleges that the Decision is flawed by the following substantive defects: (i) lack of a proper preliminary investigation, coupled with an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons, as regards the definition of the relevant market, in that the Commission carried out a joint evaluation of the BR/ESBR sectors — without, however, taking natural rubber into account — and assessed the market unfairly; (ii) erroneous attribution to Polimeri Europa of liability for facts relating to a period during which another company (not Polimeri Europa) was managing the products in question; (iii) lack of a proper preliminary investigation, coupled with an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons, as regards the assessment of the facts; (iv) lack of a proper preliminary investigation, coupled with an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons, as regards the evidence for a hypothetical unlawful act on the BR market.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges that the penalty imposed on it is unlawful for the following reasons: (i) breach of the obligation to evaluate the true impact of the infringement; (ii) failure properly to state reasons and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as regards the application of the multiplier for the purposes of deterrence; (iii) erroneous calculation of the duration of the infringement in the light of the evidence available; (iv) faulty reasoning and breach of the principles of legal certainty and proportionality as regards application of the repeat offender mechanism; (v) failure to apply the mitigating factor consisting in non-implementation of the alleged agreements and concerted practices.


title: Case T-755/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to discussions preceding the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice — Rights of the defence — Overriding public interest)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Commission
   (Case T-755/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to discussions preceding the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice - Rights of the defence - Overriding public interest))
   (2016/C 392/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, J. Herrmann and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Gestdem 2014/2070 of 24 September 2014 refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Herbert Smith Freehills LLP to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.