title: Judgment of the Court of 16 March 1999 in Case C-222/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): in the proceedings brought before that court by Manfred Trummer and Peter Mayer (Free movement of capital - National prohibition on the creation of a mortgage in a foreign currency - Interpretation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty)

text:
C 188/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3.7.1999
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 November 1996
                                                                             amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance of the
                          of 16 March 1999                                   accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                             expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
in Case C-222/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
the Oberster Gerichtshof): in the proceedings brought                        respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996 L 323, p. 26)
before that court by Manfred Trummer and Peter May-                          — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President
                                  er (1)                                     of the First Chamber, acting President of the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                             C. Gulmann, D.A.0. Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
(Free movement of capital — National prohibition on the                      (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
creation of a mortgage in a foreign currency — Interpretation                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment in
                 of Article 73b of the EC Treaty)                            which it:
                           (1999/C 188/06)                                   1. Dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: German)                           2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (1) OJ No C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-222/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought before that court
by Manfred Trummer, Peter Mayer — on the interpretation of
Article 73b of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-
ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K.M. Ioannou, Judges;                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March                                          of 18 March 1999
1999, in which has ruled:
Article 73b of the EC Treaty precludes the application of national           in Case C-166/97: Commission of the European Communi-
rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, requiring a                                ties v French Republic (1)
mortgage securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member
State to be registered in the national currency.                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas)
(1) OJ No C 228 of 26.7.1997.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          of 18 March 1999
in Case C-59/97: Italian republic v Commission of the                        In Case C-166/97: Commission of the European Communities
                     European Communities (1)                                (Agents: initially Richard B. Wainwright and Jean-Francis
                                                                             Pasquier, and subsequently Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier
 (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1992 financial year)                       Couvert-Castéra) v French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-
                                                                             Bellanger and Romain Nadal) — application for a declaration
                           (1999/C 188/07)                                   that, by taking neither the special conservation measures for
                                                                             the habitats of birds in the Seine estuary nor the appropriate
                                                                             steps to avoid deterioration of those habitats, the French
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of
                                                                             Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation wil be published in     conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — the Court
                      the European Court Reports)                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and
In Case C-59/97: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted                M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General, D. Louter-
by G. De Bellis) v Commission of the European Communities                    man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
(Agent: E. de March) — application for partial annulment of                  given a judgment on 18 March 1999 in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999 in Case T-254/97, Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas - Imports from ACP States and third countries - Application for import licences - Case of hardship - Transitional measures - Regulation (EEC) No 404/93)

text:
C 333/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
1. Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of                  3. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for damages brought
     31 January 1997 by which the applicant was removed from his                by the European Investment Bank;
     post without loss of the severance grant;
                                                                           4. Orders the applicant to pay all of the costs.
2. Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant
     the arrears of the remuneration which he should have received
     since his dismissal;                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
3. Dismisses the applications for compensation brought by the
     applicant;
4. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for damages brought
     by the European Investment Bank;
5. Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and
     to pay the costs of the applicant.                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                                                      of 28 September 1999
                                                                           in Case T-254/97, Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chem-
                                                                               nitz v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
                                                                           — Application for import licences — Case of hardship
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 — Transitional measures — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93)
                       of 28 September 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 333/59)
in Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse v European Investment
                                Bank (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Officials — Removal from post — Articles 1, 4 and 40 of
the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank                      In Case T-254/97: Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbh Chemnitz,
— Manifest error of assessment of the facts — Rights of the                established in Chemnitz (Germany), represented by Jürgen
defence — Essential procedural requirements — Principle                    Mielke and Thorsten W. Albrecht, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg
of proportionality — Counterclaim — Rejection of an                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
               application for measures of inquiry)                        of 34A Rue Philippe II, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Hubert van
                           (1999/C 333/58)                                 Vliet), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva
                                                                           de Lapuerta) and French Republic (Agent: Kareen Rispal-
                                                                           Bellanger) — Application for the annulment of the Com-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        mission Decision (VI/6251/97/DE) of 9 July 1997 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant’s request for the grant of import licences under
                                                                           the transitional measures provided for in Article 30 of Council
In Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse, a servant of the European                 Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the
Investment Bank, residing at Fauvillers (Belgium), represented             common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993
initially by Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van                 L 47, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by Olivier                composed of J.D. Cooke, President and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas
Schmitz and Catherine Burton, of the Neufchateau Bar, 14                   and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
Chaussée de Houffalize, Bastogne (Belgium), v European                     the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1999, in
Investment Bank (Agents: Giannangelo Marchegiani and                       which it:
Georges Vandersanden) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of the European Investment Bank of 31 January
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
1997, by which the applicant was removed from his post
without loss of his severance grant, and for reinstatement of
the applicant, and, second, for an order requiring the Bank to             2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of
compensate the applicant — the Court of First Instance                          the Commission;
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,          3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       their own costs.
28 September 1999, in which it:
1. Dismisses the action;                                                   (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
2. Dismisses the applications for compensation brought by the
     applicant;


title: Case T-212/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Harman International Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Barbara Becker — Earlier Community word mark BECKER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Harman International Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker)
   (Case T-212/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Barbara Becker - Earlier Community word mark BECKER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 19/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Harman International Industries, Inc. (Northridge, California, United States) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Barbara Becker (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Harman International Industries, Inc. and Barbara Becker.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1);

               2.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the application of Harman International Industries, Inc., requesting that the application for registration of Barbara Becker as a Community trade mark be rejected;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs of Harman International Industries;

               4.

               Orders Barbara Becker to bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-138/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2006 — Nanjing Metalink v Council (Dumping — Imports of ferro molybdenum originating in China — Revocation of market economy treatment — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/54

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2006 — Nanjing Metalink v Council
   (Case T-138/02) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ferro molybdenum originating in China - Revocation of market economy treatment - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
   (2006/C 326/115)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Nanjing Metalink International Co. Ltd (Nanjing, China) (represented by: P. Waer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, assisted by G.M. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and S. Meany, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2002 of 28 January 2002 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ferro molybdenum originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2002 L 35, p. 1), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro molybdenum produced by the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.


title: Case T-667/11: Action brought on 28 December 2011 — Veloss and Attimedia v Parliament

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/15

         Action brought on 28 December 2011 — Veloss and Attimedia v Parliament
   (Case T-667/11)
   2012/C 58/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Veloss International SA (Brussels, Belgium) and Attimedia SA (Brussels) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament to select the bid of the applicants filed in response to the open call for tenders no EL/2011/EU ‘Translation into Greek’ (1), as second on the list of successful tenders, communicated to the applicants by letter dated 18 October 2011 and all related decisions taken subsequently by the defendant, including the one to award the respective contract to the first successful tender;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay damages to the applicants for loss of opportunity and reputational damage in the amount of 10 000 EUR (euros);

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application, even if it is dismissed by the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the evaluation committee systematically mixed the selection and award criteria and various phases of the tendering procedure;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the European Parliament infringed Article 100 (2) of the Financial Regulation (2) by not disclosing to the applicants the financial offer of the successful tender, in spite of their written request;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           various shortcomings of the evaluation method applied by the evaluation committee and further, contesting composition of the latter, lack of effectiveness on its part;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           vagueness and unsuitability of the selection and award criteria and taking into account the criteria which have not been notified to the tenderers;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the evaluation committee failed to request the proof of the educational profile and the translation experience of the tenderers’ staff.

      (1)  OJ 2011/S 56-090374

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25.6.2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1)


title: Case C-440/03: Action brought on 16 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 289/16              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the European                        The concept of ‘approximation of the provisions laid down by
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union                   law, regulation or administrative action in Member States’
                                                                         must be interpreted to include measures for approximation in
                                                                         the form of a regulation directed at creating harmonisation at
                        (Case C-436/03)                                  Community level in order to overcome the restrictions of
                                                                         territorial application of the law of Member States to the extent
                                                                         necessary to contribute to the establishment and functioning
                        (2003/C 289/31)                                  of the internal market.
                                                                         (1) OJ 2003 L 207, p. 1.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 15 October 2003 by the European Parliament,
represented by J.-L. Rufas Quintana and E. Waldherr, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         Action brought on 16 October 2003 by the Commission
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:                    of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
1.    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July
      2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative                                              (Case C-440/03)
      Society (1);
                                                                                (2003/C 289/32)
2.    maintain the same in force until relevant new legislation
      comes into force, adopted within a reasonable period on
      the proper legal basis;
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
3.    order the Council to pay the costs.                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 16 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Bernard Schima, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Council adopted the contested regulation on the basis of             1.    declare that by failing — with the exception of provisions
Article 308 EC, which provides for a unanimous decision of                     of the Länder Saxony-Anhalt, Bavaria and Thuringia — to
the Council after consulting the European Parliament. How-                     adopt or to communicate to the Commission the laws,
ever, the regulation should have been based on Article 95 EC,                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
necessitating the codecision procedure under Article 251 EC,                   order to implement Directive 2000/9/EC of the European
as was indeed suggested by the Commission in its initial                       Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating
proposal of 6 March 1992 and in its amended proposal of                        to cableway installations designed to carry persons (1), the
6 July 1993.                                                                   Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that directive;
                                                                         2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Article 95 is the proper legal basis for the adoption of the
Statute for a European Cooperative Society in that this is a
question of the approximation of the laws of the Member
States by regulation in order to enable the creation of European
cooperatives which contribute to the establishment and func-             Pleas in law and main arguments
tioning of the internal market. The European Cooperative
Society introduced by the contested regulation is not a
                                                                         The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 May
‘supranational’ instrument since it cannot be distinguished in
any way from the models of cooperatives existing in the                  2002 without all German Länder having adopted the necessary
                                                                         provisions.
Member States and since the regulation consistently refers
back to the national law of the Member State in which the
Society has its registered office. Therefore the European
                                                                         (1) OJ L 106, 3.5.2000, p. 21.
Cooperative Society is always subject to the domestic law of
each Member State, while having a Community framework to
facilitate cross-border management.


title: Case F-65/10: Action brought on 6 August 2010 — Mata Blanco v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/73

      Action brought on 6 August 2010 — Mata Blanco v Commission
      (Case F-65/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/138)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: José Manuel Mata Blanco (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the EPSO decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition ‘COM/INT/OLAF.09/AD10 — Administrators specialised in anti-fraud’ and the reserve list and all the decisions taken on the basis of that list

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the EPSO decision of 11 May 2010 confirming, after re-examination, its decision of 9 March 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition ‘COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 — Administrators specialised in anti-fraud’;

                  —

                  annul the reserve list for internal competition ‘COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 — Administrators specialised in anti-fraud’ in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name and all other decision taken on the basis of that list;

                  —

                  order, as measures of organisation of procedure (cf. Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court), the production by the defendant of the criteria used by the jury for the oral test, the questions put to him by the competition jury during his oral test and the copy of the jury’s assessment sheet relating to that oral test together with the criteria used in their marking.


title: Case T-21/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPALINE — Earlier national word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Unfair advantage derived from the reputation of the earlier mark — Use of the mark applied for without due cause — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE)
   (Case T-21/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPALINE - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Unfair advantage derived from the reputation of the earlier mark - Use of the mark applied for without due cause - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 113/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu, L. De Brouwer, D. Moreau and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2006 (Case R 415/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-107/06: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Inet Hellas v Commission (Action for annulment — Implementation of the .eu top-level domain — Registration of the domain .co as a second-level domain — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/36

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Inet Hellas v Commission
   (Case T-107/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Implementation of the ‘.eu’ top-level domain - Registration of the domain ‘.co’ as a second-level domain - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 37/49
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Inet Hellas Ilektroniki Ipiresia Pliroforion EPE (Inet Hellas) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and E Montaguti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision supposedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 31 January 2004 concerning the rejection by the body responsible for the organisation, administration and management of the ‘.eu’ top-level domain of the applicant’s request for registration of ‘.co’ as a second-level domain.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Inet Hellas Ilektroniki Ipiresia Pliroforion EPE (Inet Hellas) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-224/15: Action brought on 6 May 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/41

         Action brought on 6 May 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-224/15)
   (2015/C 205/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision No 103299 of 27 April 2015 of the Directorate General for Infrastructures and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the applicants’ bid for lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ submitted on 29 September 2014 in respect of the public procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision awarding the contract in question to another tenderer;

               —

               Order the production of the following documents:

                           —

                           the report of the evaluation committee to which the defendant referred in its communication No 101690 of 27 February 2015; and

                           —

                           the documents in the procurement file in which the contacts between the Parliament and the tenderers were recorded in accordance with Article 160(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay 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 a failure to comply with the selection criteria and, more precisely, the criteria concerning financial and economic standing and technical and professional standing.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the award criteria. The applicants submit that, in so far as it proves to be the case that, when comparing the successful tenderer’s bid and the bids submitted by the other tenderers, that bid is abnormally low, the defendant ought to have rejected the bid and awarded the contract to the applicants.


title: Case C-305/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-305/11)
   2011/C 252/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules on employment stabilisation for workers in precarious employment (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006), under which it is possible, in derogation from the rule requiring a public selection procedure, to recruit directly, under contracts of unlimited duration, workers who have already been recruited on fixed-term contracts but with the length of service accrued under those fixed-term contracts being set at nought; or does the loss of length of service, as provided for by the national legislature, fall within the ambit of the derogation relating to ‘objective grounds’, given the need to prevent workers in precarious employment from being admitted to the permanent staff to the detriment of workers already on the permanent staff, which would be the position if it were possible for workers in precarious employment to have the length of service accrued taken into account?

               (b)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules under which, without prejudice to the accrual of length of service for the period of the fixed-term contract, the fixed-term contract is to be terminated and a new contract of unlimited duration established, which is different from the previous contract and under which

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-46/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione) — Aro Tubi Trafilerie SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze (Directive 69/335 — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — National legislation providing for the charging, in the case of a  reverse  merger, of a proportional registration tax of 1 % of the value of such a transaction — Classification as capital duty — Increase in capital — Increase in the assets of the company — Increase in the value of shares — Provision of services by a member — Decision to merge made by the members of the member)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione) — Aro Tubi Trafilerie SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-46/04) (1)

   (Directive 69/335 - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - National legislation providing for the charging, in the case of a ‘reverse’ merger, of a proportional registration tax of 1 % of the value of such a transaction - Classification as capital duty - Increase in capital - Increase in the assets of the company - Increase in the value of shares - Provision of services by a member - Decision to merge made by the members of the member)
   (2006/C 143/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aro Tubi Trafilerie SpA

      Defendant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Indirect taxes on contributions of capital to capital companies — Merger of two companies where one holds all the shares in the other
   Operative part of the judgment
   In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directives 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates of capital duty and 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, precludes the charging of a proportional registration duty of 1 % of the value of the transaction in the case of a 'reverse' merger, namely a merger by means of acquisition where all of the shares in the acquiring company are held by the company acquired.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-171/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Dr Fritz Trennheuser and Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V. v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, intervening party: DocMorris N.V.

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Dr Fritz Trennheuser and Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V. v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, intervening party: DocMorris N.V.
   (Case C-171/07)
   (2007/C 140/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Dr Fritz Trennheuser and Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V.

      Defendants: Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales

      Joined party: DocMorris N.V.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions concerning freedom of establishment for capital companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a prohibition on foreign ownership of pharmacies, as provided for by Paragraph 2(1)(1) to (4) and (7), the first sentence of Paragraph 7 and the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Gesetz über das Apothekenwesen — ApoG — (Law on Pharmacies) of 15 October 1980 (BGBl. I, p. 1993), as amended most recently by Article 34 of the Regulations of 31 October 2006 (BGBl. I, p. 2407)?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Having regard in particular to Article 10 EC and to the principle of effectiveness of Community law, is a national authority entitled and obliged to disapply national provisions it regards as contrary to Community law even if there is no clear breach of Community law and it has not been established by the Court of Justice of the European Communities that the relevant provisions are incompatible with Community law?


title: Case T-105/07: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/34

         Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG)
   (Case T-105/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 134/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MarketTools, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, A. González Hähnlein, O. Günzel and A. Wenninger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially S. Laitinen, subsequently G. Schneider and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA (Maia, Portugal) (represented by: T. Colaço Dias and J. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2007 (Case R 253/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA and MarketTools, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

               3.

               The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-311/10: Action brought on 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/24

         Action brought on 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-311/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/41
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and Ł. Habiak, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive), (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2007/46 had to be transposed expired on 29 April 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1.


title: Case C-65/00: Action brought on 25 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
13.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/5
 Must there be a reduction in the amount of aid under the                The Commission therefore submits that the Italian Republic
second sentence of Article 10(2) even where the discrepancy              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive
laid down as a prerequisite in the first sentence thereof between        75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under
the number of animals declared and that found during checks              Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC.
is attributable not to incorrect information given by the aid
applicant but to the fact that in regard to individual animals
the authority does not accept that the criteria for the grant of         (1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
premiums are met?
                                                                         (3) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(1) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 36.
(2) OJ L 156 of 7.7.1995, p. 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by the Commission                                                (Case C-68/00)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 135/09)
                         (Case C-65/00)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                        (2000/C 135/08)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February              Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
represented by Lena Ström of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to that service,
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Kirchberg.
                                                                              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 97/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the Council of 27 October 1997 amending for the third
                                                                              time Directive 88/344/EEC (2) on the approximation of the
— Declare that, by exempting undertakings and establish-                      laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in
    ments which carry out hazardous waste recovery oper-                      the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients or, in
    ations covered by Directive 91/689/EEC (1) from the need                  any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those
    for authorisation provided for by Article 10 of Directive                 measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, with-                     that Directive; and,
    out making such exemption conditional upon satisfaction
    of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2), first                 — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    and second indents, of Directive 91/689/EEC, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11
    of Directive 75/442/EEC (2), as amended by Directive                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    91/156/EEC (3), and under Article 3 of Directive
    91/689/EEC;                                                          Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                                                                         a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-            upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
    ings.                                                                on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                         laid down in the directive. That period expired on 27 October
                                                                         1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                         the Commission.
The simplified procedures for establishments or undertakings
which recover the hazardous waste covered by Directive
                                                                         (1) OJ L 331 of 3.12.1997, p. 7.
91/689/EEC remain subject solely to the requirements laid                (2) Council Directive 88/344/EC of 13 June 1988, OJ L 157 of
down by the Ministerial Decrees of 5 September 1994 and 16                   24.6.1988, p. 28.
January 1995, which do not stipulate the requirements
provided for by Article 3(2), first and second indents, of
Directive 91/689/EEC.


title: Case T-357/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 102/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
— infringement of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                   Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch
    1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                   VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    relating to trade marks and of Directive 84/450/EEC of                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
    10 September 1984 relating to misleading advertising;
                                                                                (Case T-357/99)
— violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of
    legitimate expectations, proportionality, non-discrimina-
    tion and subsidiarity.                                                                      (2000/C 102/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of
Action brought on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait Pet-                       Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
roleum (Nederland) B.V. against the Commission of the                   Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
                    European Communities                                Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
                                                                        Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
                        (Case T-354/99)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 102/56)
                                                                        — amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the
                                                                            Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal
                                                                            No R 352/1999-3, in such a way that there are no
                                                                            obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  trade mark UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH (application
European Communities on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait                          No 455881);
Petroleum (Nederland) B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands), rep-
resented by P.S.R.F. Mathijsen, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        — alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October
                                                                            1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) in appeal No R 352/1999-3
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The trade mark con-           verbal mark        ‘UNIVERSALTE-
                                                                        cerned:                       LEFONBUCH’         — application
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       No 455881
                                                                        Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
T-242/99.                                                                                media), 16 (including printing
                                                                                products), 41 (including pub-
                                                                                lishing services) and 42 (including
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                                                    editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 102/29
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
                                                                                media), 16 (including printing
                              — Incorrect      application      of                                    products), 41 (including pub-
                                  Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation                                       lishing services) and 42 (including
                                  (EC) No 40/94                                                       editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — Incorrect       application    of
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch                                                      Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                                   (EC) No 40/94
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-358/99)
                        (2000/C 102/58)
                                                                        Action brought on 24 December 1999 by Community
                  (Language of the case: German)                        Concepts AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                  (Case T-360/99)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of                                              (2000/C 102/59)
Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in                            (Language of the case: German)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             24 December 1999 by Community Concepts AG, of Munich
                                                                        (Federal Republic of Germany) (formerly: Touchdown
— amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the                  Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH), represent-
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in            ed by Friederike Bahr, Rechtsanwältin, of BBLP Beiten Burk-
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal             hardt Mittl & Wegener, Munich, with an address for service in
    No R 351/1999-3, in such a way that there are no                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker, Braun &
    obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community            Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
    Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
    trade mark UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
    NIS (application No 455873);
                                                                        — partially annul the decision adopted on 15 October
— alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October                   1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
    Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                   Designs) in case No R 204/1999-3;
    Designs) in appeal No R 351/1999-3;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The trade mark con-           The verbal mark ‘investorworld’
                                                                        cerned:                       — application No 924670
The trade mark con-           verbal      mark      ‘UNIVERSAL-
cerned:                       KOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                   Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Class 36
                              NIS’ — application No 455873              cerned:                       (including insurance and finance)


title: Case C-13/10: Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) Knubben Dak- en Leidekkersbedrijf BV v Belgische Staat

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) Knubben Dak- en Leidekkersbedrijf BV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-13/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/15
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-96/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Global Digital Disc v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/37

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Global Digital Disc v Commission
   (Case T-96/08)
   (2008/C 107/62)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Global Digital Disc GmBH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: E. Stein, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission decision COMP/C-3/38.803 of 7 December 2007 — Global Digital Disc (GDD) v Philips;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission decision COMP/C-3/38.803 of 7 December 2007 — Global Digital Disc (GDD) v Philips. In that decision the Commission dismissed the applicant's complaint, in which it pleaded several infringements of Article 82 EC by the party complained of in connection with that party's licensing practice in the CD-R field, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (1).
   In its grounds of complaint the applicant contends first that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to give reasons. Furthermore the defendant infringed the applicant's rights of defence. Finally the applicant complains that the Commission's arguments for rejecting the Community-wide importance of the subject-matter of the complaint are misjudged.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/25
The applicants further claim that the Commission's                  (a) to rule upon the notification by Germany of an
Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed                        amendment to the plan approved by Commission
pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 and                     Decision 94/1070/ECSC; and
Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (1) are unlawful pursuant
to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, since the guidelines
constitute a genuine regulation, which the Commission               (b) to authorise Germany to grant aid to its coal industry
was not competent to issue.                                              1998.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
Finally, the applicants complain of irregularities in the           amendment to the plan on the following grounds:
setting of the fine. For example, their cooperation was not
sufficiently taken into account, and the principles that a
fine should not exceed 10 % of turnover or threaten to              Ð Infringement of an essential procedural
lead to insolvency were ignored.                                         requirement / lack of reasoning:
(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                         the contested decision makes no mention of the
                                                                         purported amendments to the plan in the operative
                                                                         part of the ruling. Accordingly, there has been no
                                                                         ruling under Article 8(4) of the Code (2) as to the
                                                                         amendments to the plant notified by Germany.
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by RJB Mining PLC                 Ð Manifest failure to observe the provisions
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    o f t h e E C S C Tr e a t y a n d / o r a n y r u l e o f
                                                                         law relating to its application and misuse
                        (Case T-12/99)                                   of powers:
                        (1999/C 86/45)
                                                                         the purported ruling proceeds on the entirely false
                                                                         basis that the three main recipients of aid continued to
                (Language of the case: English)                          exist separately throughout 1998 and fails to take into
                                                                         account of the merger of those recipients in August
                                                                         1998 or the massive state aid inherent in and
An action against the Commission of the European                         conditional on the merger. Further, the purported
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        ruling, in so far as it relates to operating aid, makes
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January                       no assessment under Article 3(2) and Article 8 of the
1999 by RJB Mining PLC, represented by Mark Philip                       Code as to whether the amended plan requires the
Brealey, of Brick Court Chambers, and Jonathan Alex                      relevant undertakings to be capable of becoming
Lawrence, Solicitor of Freshfields, with an address for                  viable within the foreseeable future.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
                                                                    authorisation of aid for 1998 on similar grounds to those
                                                                    raised in Case T-110/98.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    (1) Case T-110/98 (OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
                                                                    (2) Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
1. annul the Commission Decision of 2 December 1998
     relating to aid to the German coal industry for 1998;
     and
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of action,
     including those of the applicant.                              Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal
                                                                         Health against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-13/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (1999/C 86/46)
The applicant, which has already challenged the decision                            (Language of the case: English)
relating to aid paid to the German coal industry for
1997 (1), seeks in the present application the annulment of
the decision relating to aid for 1998 (the contested                An action against the Council of the European Union was
decision) which purports:                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/26               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
Communities on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal                      Ð the regulation infringes the requirements of the
Health, represented by Elisabethann Wright, Ian S.                       precautionary principle as laid down in the
Forrester, Mark D. Powell, Solicitor, and Werner van                     Commission's own Guidelines, in that, whereas that
Lembergen acting on the instructions of Stephan J.                       document calls for a prudent and objectiv risk
Gale-Batten, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   assessment, the circumstances in which the contested
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                             regulation was adopted were the result of a
Grand-rue.                                                               misrepresentation of scientific evidence, with no
                                                                         neutral assessment of the risk involved;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð the regulation fails to observe the requirement of
                                                                         proportionality, in that it will disrupt livestock and
                                                                         poultry business in several Member States, and will
1. annul Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in its entirety or as                also destroy the applicant's virginiamycin business; the
    regards virginiamycin;                                               public interest could have been assured by less drastic
                                                                         measures;
2. take such other or further measures as justice may
    require;                                                         Ð the regulation frustrates the legitimate expectations of
                                                                         all those who believed that the surveys established by
                                                                         EC legislation would actually be conducted and would
                                                                         be treated seriously by the institutions, which were to
3. award the applicant the costs of the present action.                  be guided by them;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ð the statement of the reasons on which the regulation is
                                                                         based is inadequate and defective;
The present application seeks the annulment of Council
                                                                     Ð the regulation is inconsistent with the First Protocol of
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998,
                                                                         the European Convention on Human Rights and
amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of
                                                                         Fundamental Freedoms and with the fundamental
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
                                                                         right to property recognised by Community law.
additives in feedingstuffs (1), by which virginiamycin has
been removed from the list of feedingstuffs approved for
use in the EC. Virginiamycin is an antibiotic of the                 (1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 4.
streptogremin family of antibiotics, marketed under the
trade name Stafac'. Minute quantities of virginiamycin
are added to feedingstuffs additives developed for pigs,
poultry and cattle.
The contested regulation bans virginiamycin on the                   Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Brugg Rohr-
supposition that its use in animal husbandry may pose a              systeme against the Commission of the European
potential risk of human resistance to synercid, another                                      Communities
antibiotic of the streptogramin family, which has not been
yet authorised in the European Union. According to the                                      (Case T-15/99)
applicant, the risk is entirely theoretical.                                                (1999/C 86/47)
In support of its application, the applicant submits that:                          (Language of the case: German)
Ð procedural errors vitiated the Commission's exercise of            An action against the Commission of the European
    its discretion, errors consisting primarily in failure to        Communities was brought before the Court of First
    take proper steps to inform itself on complex scientific         Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
    matters and failure to obtain full information on all            1999 by Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, whose registered
    aspects of the case;                                             office is in Wunstorf (Germany), represented by Thomas
                                                                     Jestaedt, Hanns-Christian Salger and Martin Sura, of the
                                                                     firm of Boesebeck Droste, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ð the regulation is vitiated by manifest errors of                   Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Matthias Hardt,
    assessment;                                                      Luxembourg.


title: Case T-209/16: Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Apax Partners UK v EUIPO – Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/30

         Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Apax Partners UK v EUIPO – Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)
   (Case T-209/16)
   (2016/C 232/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apax Partners UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose and J. Warner, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APAX PARTNERS’ – EU trade mark No 1 805 282

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 in Case R 1611/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety and order the registration to be reinstated in its entirety by the EUIPO;

               —

               order the EUIPO and any party involved in these proceedings before the Board to pay the costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal before the Board and the Cancellation n. 779 C before the Cancellation Division.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-216/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC — National legislation — Participation by the public in certain assessment procedures upon payment of fees)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-216/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC - National legislation - Participation by the public in certain assessment procedures upon payment of fees)
   (2006/C 326/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, B. Murray, Senior Counsel, and G. Simons, Barrister-at-Law)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 6 and 8 of 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), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — National legislation giving the public the opportunity to participate in certain assessment procedures on payment of a participation fee
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.


title: Case T-44/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2007 — SP Entertainment Development v Commission (State aid — Actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2007 — SP Entertainment Development v Commission
   (Case T-44/05) (1)

   (State aid - Actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 95/82)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: SP Entertainment Development GmbH (Norderfriedrichskoog, Germany) (represented by: C. Demleitner, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision contained in a letter from the Commission of 20 October 2004 concerning the recovery of State aid granted by the German authorities to Space Park Development GmbH & Co. KG.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant, SP Entertainment Development GmbH, shall pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115 of 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-368/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 September 2009 — Pannon Gép Centrum Kft. v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 September 2009 — Pannon Gép Centrum Kft. v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály
   (Case C-368/09)
   2010/C 11/22
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pannon Gép Centrum Kft.

      Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of national law contained in Article 13(1)(16) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 1992. évi LXXIV. törvény (Law LXXIV of 1992 on turnover tax), in force at the material time when the disputed invoices were issued, or in Article 1/E(1) of Order 24/1995 (XI.22) of the Hungarian Ministry of Finance, specifically the provision in Article 13(1)(16)(f) of the Law on turnover tax, comply with the features of invoices, and the concept of an invoice, laid down in Article 2(b) of Directive 2001/115/EC (1) amending Directive 77/388/EEC (2) (‘the Sixth Directive’) with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax? In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative,

               2.

               Is a Member State’s practice which consists of penalising formal defects in invoices intended to be used as a basis for the right to deduct by denying that right contrary to Article 17(1), Article 18(1)(a) or Article 22(3)(a) and (b) of the Sixth Directive?

               3.

               In order to be able to exercise the right to deduct, is it sufficient to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, or is it possible to exercise the right to deduct and accept the invoice as a reliable document only if, at the same time, all the details required under Directive 2002/115/EC are provided and all the obligations laid down in Directive 2002/115/EC are fulfilled?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (OJ 2002 L 15, p. 24).

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


title: Case T-181/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2014  — Reagens v Commission (Access to documents  — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001  — Documents relating to requests that certain undertakings’ inability to pay be taken into account in cartel proceedings  — Refusal of access  — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party  — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits  — Overriding public interest  — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination  — Partial access)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2014 — Reagens v Commission
   (Case T-181/10) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to requests that certain undertakings’ inability to pay be taken into account in cartel proceedings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Partial access))
   2014/C 142/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented initially by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, L. Toffoletti, E. De Giorgi and D. Gullo, lawyers, and subsequently by B. O’Connor, L. Toffoletti and E. De Giorgi)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and J. Bourke, and subsequently by P. Costa de Oliveira and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision Gestdem No 2009/5145 of 23 February 2010, refusing the applicant access to certain documents in the file in Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision Gestdem No 2009/5145 of 23 February 2010, refusing the applicant access to certain documents in the administrative file in Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, to the extent that it refuses access to the non-confidential versions of the undertakings’ requests and to the European Commission’s first questionnaire;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Reagens SpA to pay half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Reagens.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-143/10 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2010 by Antoni Tomasz Uznański against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) made on 27 November 2009 in Case T-348/09 Uznański v Poland

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/11

         Appeal brought on 29 January 2010 by Antoni Tomasz Uznański against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) made on 27 November 2009 in Case T-348/09 Uznański v Poland
   (Case C-143/10 P)
   2011/C 103/18
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Antoni Tomasz Uznański (represented by: A. Nowak, adwokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Poland
   By order of 19 November 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case T-685/15: Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Sulayr Global Service v OHIM — Sulayr Calidad (sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/67

         Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Sulayr Global Service v OHIM — Sulayr Calidad (sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE)
   (Case T-685/15)
   (2016/C 038/91)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sulayr Global Service, SL (Valle del Zalabi, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sulayr Calidad, SL (Granada, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE’ — Application for registration No 11 960 515

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 149/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in so far as it found a similarity between the services sought in class 40 and the services covered by the earlier mark in class 42 and consequently, a risk of confusion as regards those services;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

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