title: Order of the Court of 12 October 2000 in Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid)

text:
C 79/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen (5) Verband
                                                                           der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV — Arbeiter-
                        of 12 October 2000                                 Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkasse and (8) Bundes-
                                                                           knappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal Republic of Germany,
in Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic v Commission of                      and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen on the
                 the European Communities (1)                              following questions:
 (Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid)                  1.   Must statutory sickness funds and the associations thereof
                                                                                which are subject to State supervision be regarded as
                           (2001/C 79/18)                                       undertakings or associations of undertakings within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 81 et seq. EC for the purpose of the
                                                                                joint determination of the level of uniform fixed amounts
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                              for medicinal products to which the funds’ liability is
                                                                                limited in relation to the insured persons?
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     2.   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                   in the European Court Reports)                               does determination of a fixed amount as referred to in
                                                                                the first question constitute an agreement which restricts
In Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and                  competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC?
C. Tsiavou) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                           3.   Do Articles 81 and 86 EC preclude legislation giving
suspension of operation, primarily, of Commission Decision
                                                                                social security funds and associations thereof the power
E(2000) 686 final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid
                                                                                to determine fixed amounts of the kind referred to in the
schemes implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
                                                                                first question for medicinal products?
agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994 including
aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO,
alternatively of Article 2 of that decision — the President of
the Court has made an order on 12 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                (Case C-455/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial-                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
gericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
28 September 2000 in the case of Merz + Co. GmbH &                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Co. v (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                          represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bun-                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
desverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
(5)Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV                     Centre, Kirchberg.
— Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkas-
se and (8) Bundesknappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal
Republic of Germany, and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        und Krankenkassen
                                                                           —    Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                          (Case C-428/00)                                       obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) of Council Directive
                                                                                90/270/EEC (1) of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety
                           (2001/C 79/19)                                       and health requirements for work with display screen
                                                                                equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), inasmuch as
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        it:
Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higer Social Court of North Rhine-
Westphalia) of 28 September 2000, which was received at the                     (a)   does not ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
Court Registry on 20 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                          workers who use display screen equipment within
in the case of (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                            the meaning of Article 2(c) of the abovementioned
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bundesver-                            directive;


title: Case F-54/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014  — CV v EESC (Civil service — Action for damages — Administrative investigations — Disciplinary procedure — Psychological harassment)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — CV v EESC
   (Case F-54/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Action for damages - Administrative investigations - Disciplinary procedure - Psychological harassment))
   2014/C 421/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CV (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented initially by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Pascua Mateo and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the EESC’s decision rejecting a request made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the excessive zeal, or even harassment, on the part of the administration.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Declares that each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013, p. 64.


title: Case C-122/11: Action brought on 8 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/12

         Action brought on 8 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-122/11)
   2011/C 160/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and G. Rozet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by having removed with effect only from 1 August 2004 the condition of residence which precluded the indexation of the pensions of citizens of the European Union and of the EEA residing outside a country having concluded a reciprocal agreement with Belgium, and by not having removed the discrimination which they suffered throughout the period before 1 August 2004, by being deprived of part of their pension, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) and Article 18 and 45 TFEU which lay down the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission claims that the national legislation discriminates between nationals of other Member States to the extent that it imposes only on them a condition of residence on the territory of one of the Member States or of one of the countries which concluded a reciprocal agreement with Belgium in order to benefit from the indexation of their pension for the period up to 1 August 2004.
   The Commission pleads, in addition, that the said Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 no longer provides that residence on the territory of a Member State is necessary in order to be able to rely on the principle of equal treatment. The persons covered by that regulation may therefore request the application of that principle even if they reside in a third State. Thus, a State may no longer reserve indexation of pensions for its nationals alone, but must also grant such indexation to retired persons residing in a third State.
   Finally, according to the Commission, legitimate expectations, practical difficulties and the financial impact, grounds relied on by the Belgian authorities to justify the impossibility of applying the amended legislation retroactively, cannot be accepted.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1.


title: Case C-4/09 P: Appeal brought on 8 January 2009 by Gerasimos Potamianos against the judgment delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/11

         Appeal brought on 8 January 2009 by Gerasimos Potamianos against the judgment delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission
   (Case C-4/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Gerasimos Potamianos (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N.Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul all the provisions of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed in its entirety the appellant's action of 26 April 2004 against the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE) not to extend his contract as a temporary agent;

               —

               annul the decision of the AECE not to renew his contract as a temporary agent;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs at both instances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By his appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in support of his appeal.
   In accordance with the first plea, he alleges that the interpretation of the Court of First Instance that the fact that his contract as a temporary agent was not renewed is based on reasons related to the interests of the service is incorrect. The appellant's hierarchy made a number of requests for his contract to be extended. On the contrary, objective, relevant and concordant evidence shows that the sole basis of the decision not to renew his contract was the application of the rule prohibiting aggregation of service, which imposes a maximum limit of six years on the employment of a temporary agent.
   By his second plea, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in that it considered that he had not submitted an application for the post in question, whereas, in good time, he had requested that his contract be extended and reiterated that request on several occasions, including after publication of the vacancy notice.
   By his third plea, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in that it found that the AECE did not misuse its powers. The stated aim of employment of temporary agents was to reduce the number of posts vacant within the Commission and, in particular, to make up for the shortage of candidates who had been successful in competitions.
   The latter aim was in no way met by the refusal to extend the appellant's contract following application of the rule prohibiting aggregation of service, since his post was advertised before any competition lists were published. Moreover, another temporary agent was given a long-term contract in that post, while the contracts of all the other temporary agents employed on a short-term basis in the same directorate were automatically extended, without prior advertisement of their posts.
   Finally, the principle of equal treatment has been breached since all the other temporary agents who were in a comparable situation apart from their length of service, had their contracts extended without their posts being advertised, unlike the procedure adopted in the case of the appellant. In that context, the burden of proof was wrongly reversed in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, since it is for the defendant — and not for the applicant — to prove that rules which it laid down itself have been followed.


title: Case T-389/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/76

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
   (Case T-389/14) (1)

   (2016/C 027/97)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case T-86/12: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Robert Group v OHIM — Hardford Sweden (Pierre Robert)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Robert Group v OHIM — Hardford Sweden (Pierre Robert)
   (Case T-86/12) (1)

   2013/C 32/47
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case T-79/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/32

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission
   (Case T-79/06)
   (2006/C 96/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (Wieda, Germany) (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, lawyers)

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

               —

               set aside Articles 1(k), 2(i) and 4(21) of the decision;

               —

               in the alternative, amend Article 2(i) of the decision and reduce the amount of the fine;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), by which the Commission found that the undertakings to which the decision was addressed, which included the applicant, had breached Article 81 of the EC Treaty by participating in agreements or concerted practices within the industrial-bags sector in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, France and Spain. In the part of its decision relating to the applicant, the Commission found that the applicant had taken part in the single and continuous breach and ordered it to pay a fine.
   In support of its first submission, which it presents as its main submission, the applicant sets out three pleas in law.
   In the first of these, it alleges that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal with regard to the extent of the applicant's involvement in the cartel when it formed the view that the applicant had played an active role in setting general quotas, allocating customers and fixing prices.
   The second plea in law alleges a lack of reasons inasmuch as the Commission failed to set out adequate grounds in law to substantiate its claim that the applicant had participated in a ‘Germany’ subgroup within the cartel.
   By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (2) by taking the view, erroneously in the applicant's opinion, that it was not an independent undertaking and by deciding, also incorrectly, that Groupe Gascogne, its parent company, was to be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine. The applicant further argues that the Commission erred in its determination of the portion of the fine attributable to the applicant for the period of its participation in the breach, which consequently exceeded the threshold of 10 % of its turnover.
   In support of the alternative form of order which it seeks, the applicant submits that the Commission failed correctly to assess the amount of the fine imposed and that it infringed the principle of proportionality by misconstruing the seriousness and duration of the breach, and by failing to take account of mitigating circumstances and of the applicant's cooperation under the leniency notice (3).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).

      (3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case C-177/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, Alix Walsh v Région wallonne

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, Alix Walsh v Région wallonne
   (Case C-177/09)
   2009/C 180/51
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, Alix Walsh

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) and Directive 2003/35/EC, (3) preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, (4) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case C-1/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Abanca Corporación Bancaria, S.A. v María Isabel Vázquez Rosende

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Abanca Corporación Bancaria, S.A. v María Isabel Vázquez Rosende
   (Case C-1/16)
   (2016/C 098/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria, S.A.

      Defendant: María Isabel Vázquez Rosende

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the restitutory effects of a declaration, on grounds of unfairness, of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ in a loan agreement do not apply retroactively as far back as the date of conclusion of the agreement but only to a later date?

               2.

               Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect deriving from a declaration of nullity of an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

               3.

               If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith?

               4.

               At all events, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 to interpret the concept of the good faith of those concerned as meaning that there may be good faith in the actions of a seller or supplier who, in creating the agreement, has been the cause of the want of transparency making the term unfair?

               5.

               Is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 to interpret the concept of the good faith of those concerned as meaning that the good faith of the seller or supplier may be assessed in abstracto or, on the contrary, must it be assessed in the light of the conduct of the seller or supplier in the circumstances of the particular contract?

               6.

               Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect [of declaring void] an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

               7.

               If so, what criteria must be taken into account?

               8.

               At all events, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 for the risk of serious difficulties to be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier, or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under the ‘floor clause’?

               9.

               In accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013, in an individual action brought by a consumer must the risk of serious difficulties with implications for the economic public order be assessed having regard solely to the financial effects of that specific action, or having regard to the financial effects of the potential bringing of individual actions by a large number of consumers?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-200/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures — Obligation to state reasons — Right to property — Proportionality — Error of fact — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to life — Right to a family life — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-200/14) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to property - Proportionality - Error of fact - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to life - Right to a family life - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 191/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014, amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 38), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 2), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, secondly, an application for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Case F-2/14: Action brought on 9 January 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Auditors

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/22

         Action brought on 9 January 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-2/14)
   2014/C 61/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to examine the action to be taken following the complaint made by the applicants against two of their colleagues as a result of their joint malicious statement and to consider that it was not necessary to take measures which were required under its duty to provide assistance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 13 December 2012 of the Court of Auditors to close the applicants’ file concerning their request under Article 24 without taking any action against two of their colleagues;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the applicants, for non-material damage, provisionally EUR 1 towards damage assessed at EUR 100 000;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case C-575/10: Action brought on 9 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Hungary

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/6

         Action brought on 9 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-575/10)
   2011/C 72/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and A. Sipos, Agents)

      Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) and Article 54(5) and (6) of Directive 2004/17/EC, (2) by failing to ensure that, in public procurement procedures, economic operators may, in a specific case, rely on the capacity of other entities, whatever the legal nature of the link between itself and those entities.

               —

               order Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Both Directive 2004/17 and Directive 2004/18 allow tenderers in public procurement procedures to rely on the capacity of other entities to demonstrate their suitability and the satisfaction of the selection criteria whatever the legal nature of the link between itself and those entities.
   In the view of the Commission, Hungarian rules which, in the case of certain suitability criteria, allow tenderers to use the resources of other entities which are not directly participating in the performance of the contract only if they have a controlling share in such entities do not comply with those provisions of the Directives. Thus, in the case of entities which do not participate as subcontractors in the performance of the contract, the contested national rules impose an additional requirement to be met to allow the tenderer to rely on the capacity of such entities in the public procurement procedure.
   The provisions of the Directives are unequivocal: without requiring the entities which provide the resources to be directly involved in the performance of the contract, they require the national legislation to guarantee the possibility of relying on the resources of such entities, whatever the legal nature of the link between the tenderer and those entities. The sole requirement is that the tenderer be able to demonstrate to the awarding authority that it will actually have the resources necessary for the performance of the contract.
   However, the Commission goes on to argue that the Hungarian rules at issue restrict the possibilities open to tenderers in this regard, so that, in practice, they have no option but to involve in the contract as subcontractors those entities which have such resources, unless, from the outset, they have a controlling share in such entities.
   The Commission asserts that the national rules at issue cannot be justified by the objective of eliminating practices intended to evade the public procurement rules, because that objective cannot be relied on to justify a provision contrary to European Union law on public procurement which disproportionately restricts the rights and procedural obligations arising from the Directives. Of course, it is open to the Member States, within the limits imposed by the Directives, to decide the manner in which the tenderers must demonstrate that they actually will have the resources of other entities, but they must do so without making a distinction on the basis of the legal nature of the legal links with such entities.
   The Commission rejects the argument of the Republic of Hungary that an entity which does not participate in the performance of the contract cannot demonstrate that it meets the minimum selection criteria which consist in being able actually to provide the necessary resources at the time of performance of the contract. In that connection, the Commission points out that Article 48(3) of Directive 1004/18/EC expressly provides that the tenderer may prove that it will have the resources of other entities at its disposal ‘by producing an undertaking by those entities to place the necessary resources at the disposal of the economic operator’. Thus, an entity which contributes its resources may prove that it has the resources which it must provide at the time of the performance of the contract, without being required to participate directly in the performance of the contract.
   The Commission points out, finally, that the disputed national rules may discriminate against foreign tenderers. Although the relevant Hungarian legislation applies to all tenderers, in practice it limits the possibility of participating in tender procedures for foreign tenderers in particular. In general, such tenderers do not have at their disposal, in the place of performance of the contract, all the resources necessary for performance, since, in public procurement procedures, they are obliged to have recourse, more frequently than Hungarian tenderers, to the capacities of local economic operators who are independent of them.

      (1)  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 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


title: Case C-110/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC) and Others

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC) and Others
   (Case C-110/15)
   (2015/C 178/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Nokia Italia SpA, Hewlett-Packard Italiana srl, Telecom Italia SpA, Samsung Electronics Italia SpA, Dell SpA, Fastweb SpA, Sony Mobile Communications Italy SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

      Respondents: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC), Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE), Istituto per la tutela dei diritti degli artisti interpreti esecutori (IMAIE), in liquidazione, Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali (Anica), Associazione produttori televisivi (Apt)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law, and in particular recital 31 in the preamble to, and Article 5(2)(b) of, Directive 2001/29/EC (1), preclude national rules (in particular, Article 71-sexies of the Italian Legge sul Diritto d’autore (Law on copyright), in conjunction with Article 4 of the [Decree of] 30 December 2009) that provide that, in the case of media and devices acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying (that is to say, for professional use only), determination of the criteria for ‘ex ante’ exemption from the levy is left to private negotiation, or ‘free bargaining’, with particular regard to the ‘application protocols’ referred to in Article 4 above, failing any general provisions and any guarantee of equal treatment between the SIAE and persons obliged to pay the compensation, or their trade or professional associations?

               2.

               Does Community law, and in particular recital 31 in the preamble to, and Article 5(2)(b) of, Directive 2001/29/EC, preclude national rules (in particular Article 71-sexies of the Italian Law on copyright, in conjunction with the [Decree of] 30 December 2009, and the instructions on reimbursement given by the SIAE, that provide that, in the case of media and devices acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying (that is to say, for professional use only), reimbursement may be requested only by the final user rather than the producer of the media and devices?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-122/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 15 March 2013 — Paola C. v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 15 March 2013 — Paola C. v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-122/13)
   2013/C 141/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paola C.

      Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   Must Article 12 of Directive 2004/80/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting Member States to make provision for compensation only for the victims of certain categories of violent or intentional crime or, instead, as imposing an obligation on Member States, for the purposes of the implementation of the directive, to adopt a compensation scheme for victims of all violent or intentional crime?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).


title: Case C-342/06 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2006 by La Poste against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/5

         Appeal brought on 7 August 2006 by La Poste against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-342/06 P)
   (2006/C 249/10)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: La Poste (represented by: H. Lehman, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, Chronopost SA, Union française de l'express (Ufex), DHL International SA, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 inasmuch as it annulled Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost (1) in so far as it finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost;

               —

               order Union française de l'express, DHL International, Federal express international and CRIE to pay the costs incurred by La Poste before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the Court of First Instance has infringed Article 6 EU and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in so far as that Court did not provide all of the necessary guarantees of impartiality as the judge who acted as Rapporteur in the contested judgment of 7 June 2006 was also the President of the Chamber which adopted the judgment — set aside by the Court of Justice — in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-4055.
   By its second ground of appeal, which is in two parts, the applicant alleges that the Court committed several errors of law and of procedure. First, the Court did not declare inadmissible certain pleas in law which were not included in the initial application and examined them, in infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Second, that Court committed an error of law in wrongly taking the view that the transfer of an economic activity to a subsidiary constitutes, essentially, State aid. The Court more particularly misconstrued that concept by not taking into account the particular situation of the transfer to a subsidiary of an economic activity previously carried out by the State and by not establishing the effects on the market of the measure examined.
   By its third ground of appeal, the applicant finally alleges that the Court imposed on the Commission an obligation to state reasons which was excessive, in infringement of Article 88 EC, which confers on the Commission a broad discretion in the making of complex economic assessments, and Article 253 EC, which does not require the grounds of a decision rejecting a complaint to be as detailed as an accountant's report.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 164, p. 37.


title: Case T-188/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Breyer v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Written submissions lodged by the Republic of Austria in infringement proceedings before the Court — Refusal of access)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Breyer v Commission
   (Case T-188/12) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Written submissions lodged by the Republic of Austria in infringement proceedings before the Court - Refusal of access))
   (2015/C 127/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Patrick Breyer (Wald-Michelbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Starostik, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Krämer, then H. Krämer and M. Konstantinidis, Agents, and initially by A. Krämer and R. Van der Hout, then by R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen, Agents; and the Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, C. Stege, S. Johannesson, U. Persson, K. Ahlstrand-Oxhamre and H. Karlsson, then by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, L. Sedenborg, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and F. Sjövall, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of the Commission decision of 16 March 2012 rejecting a request made by the applicant for access to its legal opinion relating to Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54), and, second, the Commission decision of 3 April 2012 refusing to grant the applicant complete access to the documents relating to the transposition of Directive 2006/24 by the Republic of Austria and the documents relating to the case which gave rise to the judgment of 29 July 2010 in Commission v Austria, C-189/09, EU:C:2010:455, in so far as, with regard to the latter decision, it concerned access to the written submissions lodged by the Republic of Austria in the course of those proceedings which was refused.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decision of 3 April 2012 refusing to grant Mr Patrick Breyer complete access to the documents relating to the transposition by the Republic of Austria of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC and to documents relating to case which gave rise to the judgment of 29 July 2010 in Commission v Austria, C-189/09 in so far as it refuses access to the written submissions lodged by the Republic of Austria in that case.

               2.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to give a ruling on the application for annulment of the Commission decision of 16 March 2012 rejecting a request by Mr Breyer for access to its legal opinion relating to Directive 2006/14.

               3.

               Orders the Commission, in addition to its own costs, to bear half the costs incurred by Mr Breyer.

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2015.


title: Case T-804/14: Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Ogrodnik v OHIM — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/39

         Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Ogrodnik v OHIM — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)
   (Case T-804/14)
   (2015/C 065/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aviário Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘Tropical’ — Community trade mark No 3 435 773

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2014 in Case R 1948/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with 53(1)(a) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-349/09: Action brought on 3 September 2009 — PAGO International v OHIM — Tirol Milch (Pago)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/76

         Action brought on 3 September 2009 — PAGO International v OHIM — Tirol Milch (Pago)
   (Case T-349/09)
   2009/C 267/136
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PAGO International GmbH (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: C. Hauer and C. Schumacher, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck (Innsbruck, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 concerning cancellation proceedings No 2025 C (Community trade mark No 915 488) so as to dismiss the appeal by Tirol Milch registrierte Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 August 2008, and order Tirol Milch registrierte Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal and refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The coloured figurative mark ‘Pago’ for goods in Class 32 (Community trade mark No 915 488)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Tirol Milch registrierte Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revocation in part of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Cancellation Division and revocation of the Community trade mark
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 51 in conjunction with Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) inasmuch as it was incorrectly deemed not to have been proved that the trade mark at issue in the proceedings had been used in such a way as to preserve the rights of the proprietor;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of fundamental Community rights, in particular the right to a fair hearing.

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


title: Case T-273/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/35

         Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
   (Case T-273/17)
   (2017/C 221/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: N. De Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the PMO’s decision of 19 July 2016 setting his individual rights at the time of taking up employment at the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), in that it refuses to award him an expatriation allowance of 16 % pursuant to Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, consequently, implies that related rights, in particular annual travel expenses, are not to be granted;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to have regard for the discussions and negotiations relating to the period preceding the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, in particular, failure to respect legitimate expectations, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty of the applicant, as well as disregard for his acquired rights, by reason of a suddenly different analysis of the documentation used to determine his individual rights.

               2.

               Second plea in law, relating to the temporary employment contract governed by Belgian law invoked by the Commission as justification for the view that the applicant established his residence in Belgium during a period of employment for a private employer. This plea in law is divided into three parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging that the Commission misused and abused its powers by attempting to exclude any hierarchical relationship between itself and the applicant during his period of employment as an agency staff member in order to be able to deny the existence of employment with an international organisation, which would in principle have to result in the postponement of any determination as to whether the conditions required by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations had been satisfied;

                           —

                           second part, alleging an error in law, infringement of the Belgian statutory provisions relating to temporary employment contracts and misuse of powers by the Commission;

                           —

                           third part, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of the principle of sound administration.


title: Case T-243/03: Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
1.11.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 264/27
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc. against                  Grounds of claim:             —      The mark applied for is not
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                         devoid of any distinctive
                                                                                character within the mean-
                                                                                ing of Article 7(1)(b) of
                        (Case T-243/03)                                                                        Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 (1).
                        (2003/C 264/48)                                                                 —      The mark applied for is not
                                                                                the normal means of
                                                                                designating services in the
                                                                                field of transportation, stor-
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                age and travel.
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-
                                                                              munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc.,
Atlanta (USA), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Defendant’s Second Board of               Action brought on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’ against the
      Appeal of 28 April 2003;                                                    Commission of the European Communities
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                                        (Case T-259/03)
      Trade Mark number 1713213;
                                                                                (2003/C 264/49)
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The trade mark con-          The word mark ‘PENSAMOS MÁS                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
cerned:                      EN USTED’ — application                      European Communities on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’, resident in
                             No 1713213                                   Athens, Greece, represented by Vasilios Christianos, lawyer,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Goods or service con-        Services in Class 39 (transpor-
cerned:                      tation, storage and travel services;
                             transportation of passengers and             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             cargo, frequent flyer bonus pro-
                             grams)                                       —    order the defendant to pay to her by way of damages,
                                                                               with interest from the time at which the damage or
Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the                    harm arose, the sum of EUR 900 000, comprising
before the Board of          examiner                                          EUR 700 000 for non-material damage which she has
Appeal:                                                                        suffered and EUR 200 000 for harm suffered to her
                                                                               health;
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                   —    order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.


title: Case F-87/12 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Alsteens v Commission (Civil Service — Referred back after setting aside of the judgment — Temporary member of staff — Renewal of contract — Six year rule)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Alsteens v Commission
   (Case F-87/12 RENV)
   ((Civil Service - Referred back after setting aside of the judgment - Temporary member of staff - Renewal of contract - Six year rule))
   (2015/C 190/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Referred back after setting aside of the judgment — Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit the extension period of the applicant’s contract.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alsteens to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F-87/12, T-373/13 P and F-87/12 RENV and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Case F-87/12;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Cases T-373/13 P and F-87/12 RENV.


title: Case T-362/05 and T-363/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Nuova Agricast and Cofra v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation — Scheme declared compatible with the common market — Transitional measure — Certain undertakings excluded — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — None)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Nuova Agricast and Cofra v Commission
   (Case T-362/05 and T-363/05) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation - Scheme declared compatible with the common market - Transitional measure - Certain undertakings excluded - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - None)
   (2009/C 19/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Nuova Agricast Srl (Cerignola, Italy) and Cofra Srl (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: M.A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State aid No 715/1999 — Italy (SG 2000 D/105754)) and as a result of the Commission's conduct during the procedure which preceded the adoption of that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Case T-362/05 and T-363/05 for the purposes of the judgment.

               2.

               Dismisses the actions.

               3.

               Orders Nuova Agricast Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-362/05.

               4.

               Orders Cofra Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-363/05.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case T-105/10: Action brought on 1 March 2010 — BASF v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/70

         Action brought on 1 March 2010 — BASF v Commission
   (Case T-105/10)
   2010/C 113/104
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag, J. Blockx and T. Wilson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission in the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)10568 of 18 December 2009 in Case No. COMP/M.5355 — BASF/Ciba rejecting the proposal of 6 November 2009 to approve Roquette Frères as purchaser of Divestment Business SDA and rejecting the request to modify the commitments subject to which the Commission declared, by its decision C(2009) 1961 of 12 March 2009, the operation by which the applicant acquires control of the whole CIBA Holding AG (‘Ciba’) compatible with the common market.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its application for annulment.
   It claims, in the first place, that by rejecting the proposed purchaser the defendant violated Article 6(2) of the Regulation No 139/2004 (1), paragraphs 418 and 419 of the decision approving BASF’s acquisition of Ciba, clause 4(a)(b), 13, 14 and 34 and Schedule B of the commitments attached thereto and paragraphs 31, 48, 73 and 102 of the remedies notice (2).
   In particular, the applicant argues that the defendant has based its rejection of the proposed purchaser on inaccurate facts and has committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the incentive for Roquette Frères to maintain and develop the Divestment Business. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the defendant has relied on inaccurate facts and committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the applicant’s request to modify the commitments according to the review clause of the commitments.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since, in the applicant’s opinion, the rejection of its proposal was not necessary to achieve the purpose of the commitments to avoid the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.
   Thirdly, the applicant claims that the defendant violated the principle of sound administration and Article 296 TFEU by failing to hear the applicant before taking the contested decision and by failing to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2004 L 133, p. 1


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-345/03 (1)

   (2005/C 45/39)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 29 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-345/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

      (1)  OJ C 226, de 20.9.03.


title: Case C-74/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
   (Case C-74/14)
   2014/C 142/22
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: UAB Eturas and Others

      Respondent: Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (Lithuanian Competition Council)

      Interested third parties: UAB Aviaeuropa, UAB Grand Voyage, UAB Kalnų upė, UAB Keliautojų klubas, UAB Smaragdas travel, UAB 700LT, UAB Aljus ir Ko, UAB Gustus vitae, UAB Tropikai, UAB Vipauta, UAB Vistus

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which economic operators participate in a common computerised information system of the type described in this case and the Competition Council has proved that a system notice on the restriction of discounts and a technical restriction on discount rate entry were introduced into that system, it can be assumed that those economic operators were aware, or must have been aware, of the system notice introduced into the computerised information system and, by failing to oppose the application of such a discount restriction, expressed their tacit approval of the price discount restriction and for that reason may be held liable for engaging in concerted practices under Article 101(1) TFEU?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in the determination as to whether economic operators participating in a common computerised information system, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, have engaged in concerted practices within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU?


title: Case T-106/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/21

         Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
   (Case T-106/13)
   2013/C 141/38
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonimi Emporiki Etairia Parokhis Ipiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the company’s exclusion by the European Commission from participation in the ARTreat programme constitutes a breach of the Commission’s contractual obligations in the light of the principles of proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations, and order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of three hundred and forty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight euro and eighty-eight cent (EUR 343 828,88) in respect of the payments which are owed by the Commission for the ARTreat project, together with interest from the date on which the present action is lodged;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and thirty-three euro (EUR 89 933,16) as compensation for the financial damage and the harm to its professional reputation that the applicant has suffered because of misuse of the Commission’s powers and breach of confidentiality, together with compensatory interest from 14 June 2012 until delivery of judgment in the present case and interest for late payment from delivery of judgment in the present case until settlement in full;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant brings together two actions.
   First, an action, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in respect of liability of the Commission under Contract FP7-224297 concerning the carrying out of the project ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat)’. In particular, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission, without being so entitled and in breach of the contract and of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, suspended payment to it.
   Second, an action to establish non-contractual liability of the Commission, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. In particular, the applicant submits that the Commission, by reason of its unlawful conduct, has harmed the applicant’s professional reputation.


title: Case T-349/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO — Earlier international word mark RECARO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)
   (Case T-349/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO - Earlier international word mark RECARO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 304/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rudolf Leiner GmbH (Sankt Pölten, Austria) (represented by: W. Emberger, I. Rudnay and L. Emberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 May 2012 (Case R 482/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Rudolf Leiner GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rudolf Leiner GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-106/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — M.J. Bakker v Minister van Financiën (Social security for migrant workers — Legislation applicable — Worker holding Netherlands nationality working, for an employer established in the Netherlands, on board dredgers flying the Netherlands flag which operate outside the territory of the European Union — Residence in the territory of another Member State — Affiliation to the Netherlands social security system)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — M.J. Bakker v Minister van Financiën
   (Case C-106/11) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Legislation applicable - Worker holding Netherlands nationality working, for an employer established in the Netherlands, on board dredgers flying the Netherlands flag which operate outside the territory of the European Union - Residence in the territory of another Member State - Affiliation to the Netherlands social security system)
   2012/C 217/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M.J. Bakker

      Defendant: Minister van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 1(a), 2 and 13(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition, 1971(II), p. 416) — Worker with Netherlands nationality working on dredgers sailing outside the territory of the European Union under the Netherlands flag for an employer established in the Netherlands — Worker residing on the territory of another Member State — No affiliation to the Netherlands social security scheme

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, must be interpreted as precluding a legislative measure of a Member State from excluding, from affiliation to the social security scheme of that Member State, a person in the position of the applicant in the main proceedings, who holds that Member State’s nationality but does not reside in it and is employed on board a dredger flying the flag of that Member State and operating outside the territory of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case C-558/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 17 December 2008 — Portakabin Limited and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 17 December 2008 — Portakabin Limited and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV
   (Case C-558/08)
   (2009/C 55/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants in cassation: Portakabin Limited and Portakabin BV

      Respondent in cassation: Primakabin BV
   Questions referred

               1

                           (a)

                           Where a trader in certain goods or services (‘the advertiser’) avails himself of the possibility of submitting to the provider of an internet search engine an adword [when advertising via the internet, it is possible to pay to use ‘adwords’ on search engines such as Google. When such an adword is keyed into the search engine, a reference to the advertiser's website appears either in the list of webpages found, or as an advertisement on the right-hand side of the page showing the results of the search, under the heading ‘Sponsored links’] which is identical to a trade mark registered by another person (‘the proprietor’) in respect of similar goods or services, and the adword submitted — without this being visible to the search engine user — results in the internet user who enters that word finding a reference to the advertiser's website in the search engine provider's list of search results, is the advertiser ‘using’ the registered trade mark within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1)?

                           (b)

                           Does it make a difference in that regard whether the reference is displayed

                                       —

                                       in the ordinary list of webpages found; or

                                       —

                                       in an advertising section identified as such?

                           (c)

                           Does it make a difference in that regard

                                       —

                                       whether, even within the reference notification on the search engine provider's webpage, the advertiser is actually offering goods or services that are identical to the goods or services covered by the registered trade mark; or

                                       —

                                       whether the advertiser is in fact offering goods or services which are identical to the goods or services covered by the registered trade mark on a webpage of his own, which internet users (as referred to in Question 1(a)) can access via a hyperlink in the reference on the search engine provider's webpage?

               2.

               If and in so far as the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can Article 6 of Directive 89/104, in particular Article 6(1)(b) and (c), result in the proprietor being precluded from prohibiting the use described in Question 1 and, if so, under what circumstances?

               3.

               In so far as the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is Article 7 of Directive 89/104 applicable where an offer by the advertiser, as indicated in Question 1, relates to goods which have been marketed in the European Community under the proprietor's trade mark referred to in Question 1 or with his permission?

               4.

               Do the answers to the foregoing questions apply also in the case of adwords, as referred to in Question 1, submitted by the advertiser, in which the trade mark is deliberately reproduced with minor spelling mistakes, making searches by the internet-using public more effective, assuming that the trade mark is reproduced correctly on the advertiser's website?

               5.

               If and in so far as the answers to the foregoing questions mean that the trade mark is not being used within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104, are the Member States entitled, in relation to the use of adwords such as those at issue in this case, simply to grant protection — under Article 5(5) of that directive, in accordance with provisions in force in those States relating to the protection against the use of a sign other than for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services — against use of that sign which, in the opinion of the courts of those Member States, without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark, or do Community-law parameters associated with the answers to the foregoing questions apply to national courts?

      (1)  First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Case C-332/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 5 July 2005 in Aldo Celozzi v Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 5 July 2005 in Aldo Celozzi v Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-332/05)
   (2005/C 281/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 5 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aldo Celozzi and Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg on the following question:
   Is it compatible with the primary and/or secondary law of the European Community (in particular Article 39 EC (formerly Article 48 of the EC Treaty), Articles 3(1) and 23(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68) (1) for a married migrant worker employed in Germany, whose spouse resides in another Member State, to receive sick pay always linked to net remuneration established on the basis of the wage tax class stated on his wage tax card without account being taken of a subsequent retroactive amendment, which is favourable to him, of the tax classification relating to his marital status?

      (1)  OJ L 257 p. 2.


title: Case C-326/07: Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/3

         Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-326/07)
   (2007/C 247/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignatoro-Nolin and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by including provisions such as those contained in Article 1(2) of the decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 10 June 2004 on the definition of criteria for the exercise of the special powers referred to in Article 2 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted into law with amendments by Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, and amended by Article 4(227)(a), (b) and (c) of Finance Law No 350/2004, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission takes the view that the criteria referred to by Article 1(2) of the Decree of 10 June 2004 for the exercise of special powers, laid down by Article 4(227)(a), (b) and (c) of Law No 350/2004, are not precise or specific enough to enable an investor in another Member State to know when the special powers under Article 4(227)(a), (b) and (c) of Law No 350/2004 will be used.
   The special powers under Article 4(227)(a), (b) and (c) of Law No 350/2004 are: to prevent investors from acquiring significant shareholdings representing at least 5 % of voting rights or a lower percentage fixed by the Ministry of Finance, to prevent the conclusion of contracts and agreements between members representing 5 % of voting rights or a lower percentage fixed by the Ministry of Finance and the power to veto the adoption of resolutions for the dissolving of companies, the transferring of shareholdings, for merger, demerger, transferring abroad of the company headquarters, or altering of company objects, criteria applicable to all the sectors mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(227) of the Law (defence, transport, telecommunications, energy sources and other public services).
   In light of the Court's case-law (Case C-463/00 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-4581; Case C-483/99 Commission v France [2002] ECR I-4781; Case C-503/99 Commission v Belgium [2002] ECR I-4809, and Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-293/04 Commission v Netherlands [2006] ECR I-9141), the Commission considers therefore that the legislation in question goes beyond what is necessary in order to safeguard the public interests provided for by Article 1.2 of the Decree of 10 June 2004 and that it is contrary to both Article 56 EC and Article 43 EC. In the Commission's view, for the sectors thus regulated, such as energy, gas or telecommunications, the aim of protecting the State's vital interests may be attained by adopting less restrictive measures regulating those activities, such as Directive 2003/54/EC (1) and Directive 2003/55/EC (2) or Directive 2002/21/EC (3) and Directives 2002/19/EC (4), 2002/20/EC (5), 2002/22/CE (6) and 2002/58/EC (7). It is the Commission's opinion, furthermore, that those acts guarantee the safeguarding of national minimum provisions and that there is no causal link between the need to ensure power supplies, the provision of public services and the supervision of the ownership structure or of the management of the undertaking.

      (1)  OJ L 176, p. 37.

      (2)  OJ L 176, p. 57.

      (3)  OJ L 108, p. 33.

      (4)  OJ L 108, p. 7.

      (5)  OJ L 108, p. 21.

      (6)  OJ L 108, p. 51.

      (7)  OJ L 201, p. 37.


title: Case T-12/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 October 2009 in Case F-94/08, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/49

         Appeal brought on 15 January 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 October 2009 in Case F-94/08, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-12/10 P)
   2010/C 63/86
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) on 29 October 2009 in Case F-94/08 Marcuccio v Commission. That order dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of the note of 28 March 2008 by which the European Commission informed the appellant of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity benefit in order to secure payment of the costs incurred in earlier proceedings.
   In support of his claims, the appellant alleges distortion and misrepresentation of the facts in the order under appeal, a total failue to state reasons and misapplication and misinterpretation of the principle tempus regit actum and of the concept of a decision having an adverse effect.


title: Case C-19/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 January 2011 — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 January 2011 — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG
   (Case C-19/11)
   2011/C 113/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Markus Geltl

      Defendant: Daimler AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of applying Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC (1) and Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124/EC, (2) is account to be taken, in the case of a protracted process intended, over the course of a number of intermediate steps, to bring about a particular circumstance or to generate a particular event, only of whether that future circumstance or future event is to be regarded as precise information within the meaning of those provisions of the directive, meaning that it must be examined whether that future circumstance or future event may reasonably be expected to occur, or, in the case of a protracted process of this kind, can intermediate steps which already exist or have already occurred and which are connected with bringing about the future circumstance or event also constitute precise information within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of the directive?

               2.

               Does reasonable expectation within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124/EC require that the probability be assessed as predominant or high, or does the reference to circumstances which may reasonably be expected to come into existence or events which may reasonably be expected to occur imply that the degree of probability depends on the extent of the effects on the issuer and that, where prices are highly likely to be affected, it is sufficient if the occurrence of the future circumstance or event is uncertain but not improbable?

      (1)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse); OJ L 96, 12.4.2003, p. 16.

      (2)  Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation (Text with EEA relevance); OJ 2003 L 339, p. 70.


title: Case T-542/14: Action brought on 21 July 2014  — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Form of round sandwich bread)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/21

         Action brought on 21 July 2014 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Form of round sandwich bread)
   (Case T-542/14)
   2014/C 339/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1911/2013-4, because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application, whether on the basis of the intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for or the distinctiveness acquired by use, upholding the present action and ordering the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 1 1 7 47  987, for goods in class 30 of the International Classification, on the grounds that it is lawful and admissible;

               —

               once the present action has been upheld and the trade mark in question has been registered, order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark: Three-dimensional mark in the form of round sandwich bread for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 47  987

      Decision of the examiner: Application dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009