title: Joined Cases C-561/08 P and C-4/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Gerasimos Potamianos (C-561/08 P), Gerasimos Potamianos v Commission of the European Communities (C-4/09 P) (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary agent — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Act having adverse effect))

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Gerasimos Potamianos (C-561/08 P), Gerasimos Potamianos v Commission of the European Communities (C-4/09 P)
   (Joined Cases C-561/08 P and C-4/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary agent - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Act having adverse effect))
   2010/C 51/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and D. Martin, agents) (C-561/08 P), Gerasimos Potamianos (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer) (C-4/09 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Gerasimos Potamianos (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer) (C-4/09 P), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and D. Martin, agents) (C-561/08 P)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission in which the Court held that that action brought by Mr Potamianos against the notification by the Director-General of the Directorate-General for ‘Research’, of information according to which his contract as a member of the temporary staff would not be renewed beyond its date of expiry — Concept of an act adversely affecting the official — Differences in the interpretation between the Court, first, and the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal, second

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009

      OJ C 82, 04.04.2009


title: Case C-86/13: Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union: interveners: European Parliament, Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/45

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union: interveners: European Parliament, Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-86/13) (1)

   2014/C 315/74
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-344/05: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guaranteee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Beef — Extensification payment — Arable crops — Fruit and vegetables — Aid for processing of citrus fruit — Conditions for application of 100 % flat-rate financial correction — Proportionality)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-344/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guaranteee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Beef - Extensification payment - Arable crops - Fruit and vegetables - Aid for processing of citrus fruit - Conditions for application of 100 % flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality)
   2011/C 311/52
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and E. Svolopoulou, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Visaggio, agents, and by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the beef, arable crops and fruit and vegetables sectors.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of extensification payments made for the years 2000 and 2001;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-351/01: Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against French Republic

text:
10.11.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 317/17
—    Infringement of the principles of proper administration.                 to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid
     In spreading the burden over all the Länder, the Com-                    fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (1), or, in any
     mission departed from an administrative practice which                   event, by failing to communicate the same to the
     had pertained for many years without any reason. In the                  Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     light of the legal scope of such a new procedure, it would               obligations under that directive;
     have been necessary on grounds of proper administration,
     foreseeability and transparency for the Commission to              —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     give notice of its change of policy and at least an outline
     thereof by way of a communication to the Member
     States. That applies a fortiori in so far as the question of
     supra-Länder burdens are of great political and legal
     significance in other Member States too, in particular             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those with federal or quasi-federal decentralised adminis-
     trative structures such as, for example, Austria and Spain.
     Beyond that, the question of the conditions on which it
     is possible to assume errors in a Member State as a whole          Article 249 EC, according to which directives are to be binding,
     on the basis of the conclusions of particular studies is of        as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
     vital importance to all the other Member States too.               which they are addressed, implies an obligation for the Member
                                                                        States to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid
                                                                        down in the directives. That time-limit expired on 1 July 2000
—    Infringement of Article 10 EC. The duty of loyal co-               without the Italian Republic having enacted the provisions
     operation to which the Community institutions are                  necessary to comply with the directive mentioned in the
     subject involves a duty to take into account the underlying        Commissions pleadings.
     administrative structures of the Member States. Respect
     for the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is
     divided into autonomous Länder requires that financial             (1) OJ L 121 of 11.5.1999, p. 13.
     corrections in respect of individual Länder can only be
     made where the EAGGF has reached its own conclusions
     as to a breach of Community law to the detriment of the
     Community budget in those Länder.
(1) Commission Decision 2001/557/EC (OJ L 200, 25.7.2001, p. 28).
                                                                        Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-351/01)
Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Com-                                                 (2001/C 317/32)
mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                            Republic
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 Septem-
                         (Case C-350/01)                                ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agents, with an address
                         (2001/C 317/31)                                for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Septem-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
acting as Agents.
                                                                              Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                              Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the
                                                                              profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   State other than that in which the qualification was
                                                                              obtained (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
—    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  obligations under that directive; and
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating             2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/18                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Appeal brought on 19 September 2001 by Olli Mattila
                                                                      against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the
                                                                      Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those            European Communities in case T-204/99 (1) between Olli
submitted in Case C-323/01 (2); the period prescribed for             Mattila and the Council of the European Union and the
transposition expired on 14 March 2000.                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-353/01 P)
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/34)
                                                                      An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by
                                                                      the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in case T-204/99 between Olli Mattila
                                                                      and the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, was brought before the Court
Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Com-                       of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September
mission of the European Communities against the                       2001 by Olli Mattila, residing in Hyvinkää, Finland, represented
                        Kingdom of Spain                              by Z. Sundström and M.R. Kauppi, Lawyers, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-352/01)
                                                                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 317/33)
                                                                      —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   Chamber) of 12 July 2001;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Sep-
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agent,         —     annul the decision of the Council and the Commission
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                  which is the subject of the present appeal;
L. Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre C 254.
                                                                      —     invite the Council and the Commission to reconsider
                                                                            their position and give access to the Appellant to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 requested documents;
1.    Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations        —     give access, at least partial access, to such documents after
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                cancelling or editing the sections which may justifiably
      Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the               qualify as liable to prejudice the international relations of
      Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of                 the European Community;
      biocidal products on the market (1) or, in any event, not
      having communicated those provisions to the Com-
      mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its          —     order jointly the Council and the Commission to pay the
      obligations under that directive.                                     costs incurred by the Appellant in these proceedings.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The Appellant contends that the Court of First Instance
                                                                      has incorrectly applied European Community Law, namely
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in          93/731/EC of 20 December 1993(2) on public access to
Case C-323/01 (2); the deadline for transposition expired on          Council documents and 94/90 ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 Febru-
13 May 2000.                                                          ary 1994 (3) on public access to Commission documents.
(1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 63.                                     The pleas in support of the appeal are the following:
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      a.    Manifest error of assessment in interpreting the exception
                                                                            concerning the protection of international relations;


title: Case C-27/13: Order of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany)) — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — Advantages granted by a public undertaking operating an airport to a low-cost airline — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure — Obligation of the courts of the Member States to follow the Commission’s assessment in that decision as regards the existence of aid)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/3

         Order of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany)) — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
   (Case C-27/13) (1)

   ((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - State aid - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Advantages granted by a public undertaking operating an airport to a low-cost airline - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Obligation of the courts of the Member States to follow the Commission’s assessment in that decision as regards the existence of aid))
   2014/C 261/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Schleswig-Holstein Oberlandesgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

      Defendant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Where, by application of Article 108(3) TFEU, the European Commission has opened the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to a non-notified measure currently being implemented, a national court, hearing an application for the cessation of the implementation of that measure and the recovery of the sums already paid, is required to adopt all the measures necessary to draw the appropriate conclusions from any breach of the obligation to suspend the implementation of that measure.
               To that end, the national court may decide either to suspend the implementation of the measure at issue and order the recovery of the sums already paid or to order interim measures in order to safeguard, firstly, the interests of the parties concerned and, secondly, the effectiveness of the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.

               2.

               A national court cannot, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, stay the proceedings until the closure of the formal investigation procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-385/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by Sharif University of Technology against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-52/15: Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/41

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by Sharif University of Technology against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-52/15: Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-385/16 P)
   (2016/C 335/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Sharif University of Technology (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2016 in Case T-52/15 Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court: and

               —

               order the Council to pay the Appellant’s costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant requests the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court, to annul the acts at issue (the Annexes to Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP (1) and to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 (2), and of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (4) (as amended, respectively, by Article 1 of Decision 2014/776/CFSP and Article 1 of Implementing regulation (EU) No 1202/2014)) insofar as they designate the Appellant as an entity subject to restrictive measures under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, to award it compensation for the damage sustained to its reputation by virtue of the Council’s acts, and to order the Council to pay the costs incurred by it at first instance and on appeal.
   The Appellant puts forward the following two pleas in law in support of its claim that the judgment of the General Court was vitiated by legal error, and that the Court of Justice should set it aside and decide the case for itself:
   First, that the General Court wrongly failed to rule that the Council failed to comply with an essential procedural requirement and/or made a manifest error of assessment when adopting the decision to list SUT because it failed to undertake the decision-making exercise it was obliged to undertake.
   Secondly, that the General Court wrongly interpreted the legal criterion of ‘support’ to the Government of Iran in Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as amended) and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 march 2012 (as amended) relied upon by the Council as justifying the Appellant’s designation as subject to restrictive measures with the result that it wrongly concluded that the evidence presented by the Council supported the Appellant’s listing.

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

      OJ L 325, p. 19

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

      OJ L 325, p. 3

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP

      OJ L 195, p. 39

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010

      OJ L 88, p. 1


title: Case C-360/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2009 — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2009 — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt
   (Case C-360/09)
   2009/C 297/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Bonn

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfleiderer AG

      Defendant: Bundeskartellamt

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Community competition law — in particular Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC — to be interpreted as meaning that parties adversely affected by a cartel may not, for the purpose of bringing civil-law claims, be given access to leniency applications or to information and documents voluntarily provided in that connection by applicants for leniency which the national competition authority of a Member State has received, pursuant to a national leniency programme, within the framework of proceedings for the imposition of fines which are (also) intended to enforce Article 81 EC?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Case C-402/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Adrien Kauffmann v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Adrien Kauffmann v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
   (Case C-402/15)
   (2015/C 302/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Adrien Kauffmann

      Respondent: Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

      Questions referred

   In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, being the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

               —

               should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that he must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

               —

               should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

               —

               From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

      (2)  EU:C:2013:411.


title: Case T-155/07: Action brought on 4 May 2007 — Européenne de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) v OHIM

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/42

         Action brought on 4 May 2007 — Européenne de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) v OHIM
   (Case T-155/07)
   (2007/C 140/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schouman, lawyers)

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

               —

               annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2007 and notified on 8 March 2007, Case R 1046/2006-1, in so far as it refused registration of the Community trade mark CYBERBOURSE as set out in application No 4 114 682 in respect of some of the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

               —

               registration of the Community trade mark CYBERBOURSE as set out in application No 4 114 682 in respect of all of the goods and services claimed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark CYBERBOURSE for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 682)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the action

      Pleas in law: The applicant states that, contrary to what the Board of Appeal of OHIM found in the contested decision, its trade mark is arbitrary and has sufficient distinctive character as required by Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in respect of the goods and services claimed.

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


title: Case C-44/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG
   (Case C-44/11)
   2011/C 145/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst

      Defendant: Deutsche Bank

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management), where a taxable person determines for remuneration the purchase and sale of securities and implements that determination by buying and selling the securities, exempt from tax

                           —

                           only in so far as it consists in the management of investment funds for a number of investors collectively within the meaning of Article 135(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or also

                           —

                           in so far as it consists in individual portfolio management for individual investors within the meaning of Article 135(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (transactions in securities or the negotiation of such transactions)?

               2.

               For the purposes of defining principal and ancillary services, what significance is to be attached to the criterion that the ancillary service does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied, in the context of separate invoicing for the ancillary service and the fact that the ancillary service can be provided by third parties?

               3.

               Does Article 56(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112/EC cover only the services referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Directive 2006/112/EC or also the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management), even if that transaction is not subject to the latter provision?

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-671/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — E-Control v ACER

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/64

         Action brought on 23 November 2015 — E-Control v ACER
   (Case T-671/15)
   (2016/C 038/87)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the opinion of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities' decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the violation of procedural requirements including in particular the lack of procedural rules, the infringement of the right of access to the file, the infringement of the right to be heard, and the absence of a proper justification.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the lack of legal basis for the measures proposed since ACER has not followed the procedure provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 but instead based its opinion on article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 and therefore overstepped the competence provided for in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 and acted ultra vires.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 since ACER’s conclusion that structural congestion exists on the German-Austrian border is not supported by facts and is incompatible with the definition of congestion. Furthermore, the opinion lacks an impact assessment and a thorough evaluation of alternative solutions. Finally, the capacity allocation procedure as set out in the opinion is neither an appropriate nor a proportionate remedy for the problems identified in the opinion.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1222/2015 (CACM Guideline) to the extent that the opinion disregards the binding material and procedural requirements of the CACM Guideline, which entered into force before the opinion was adopted.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 102 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, since the opinion violates fundamental principles of the European Internal Energy Market by ordering the national regulatory authorities and the TSO's to artificially split the integrated electricity market between Austria and Germany.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 34 TFEU and Article 35 TFE because the regulatory measure would impose artificial barriers of trade between Member States and would interfere with the fundamental principle of Freedom of Goods in the meaning of Article 34 TFEU and Article 35 TFE.


title: Case C-149/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France)) — Harold Price v Conseil des ventes volontaires de meubles aux enchères publique (Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Workers — Recognition of professional education and training — Requirement to undergo an aptitude test without the opportunity to choose an adaptation period — Voluntary sales of chattels by public auction)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France)) — Harold Price v Conseil des ventes volontaires de meubles aux enchères publique
   (Case C-149/05) (1)

   (Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Workers - Recognition of professional education and training - Requirement to undergo an aptitude test without the opportunity to choose an adaptation period - Voluntary sales of chattels by public auction)
   (2006/C 261/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Paris (France)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Harold Price

      Defendant: Conseil des ventes volontaires de meubles aux enchères publique
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel, Paris — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209 p. 25) — Activity of director of voluntary sales of chattels by public auction — Requirement to take an aptitude test without the possibility of choosing an adaptation period
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, does not apply to an applicant relying on qualifications such as those relied on by the applicant in the main proceedings who wishes to pursue the profession of director of voluntary sales of chattels by public auction in France.
               However, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, and in particular point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 thereof, may apply to such an applicant if the profession of director of voluntary sales of chattels by public auction in the Member State in which the applicant acquired the qualifications on which he relies is not a regulated profession within the meaning of Article 1(c) of that directive. It is for the national court to determine, if necessary, whether that is the case.

               2.

               A profession access to which requires a diploma in law awarded on completion of studies of at least two years' duration is a profession the practice of which, it can be assumed, requires a precise knowledge of national law within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19.
               For that provision to apply, it is not necessary for the activity in question to involve the provision of advice and/or assistance concerning all national law; it is sufficient that it concerns a specialised area and is an essential and constant element of that activity. In that context, reference should be made in particular to normal practice of the relevant profession.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.05.2005.


title: Case F-105/10: Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Bömcke v EIB

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/65

         Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Bömcke v EIB
   (Case F-105/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/127
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eberhard Bömcke (Athus, Belgium) (represented by: D. Lagasse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision taken by the defendant’s director of human resources confirming that the applicant’s authority to represent staff has expired and damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the director of human resources of the EIB, notified to the applicant by letter dated 12 October 2010 and received on 15 October 2010,

               —

               order the EIB to make good the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the abovementioned decision and award him damages of EUR 25,000 to that end.

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-146/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/56

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic
   (Case C-146/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/111
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Miguel Vicente Nuñez against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-100/96)

text:
 No C 247/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
     and that, by failing to initiate the consultative                 authority is thereby denying the applicant the right to a fair
     examination procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ) of the               hearing which is granted by the Treaty to complainants
     Treaty, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations       during the consultative examination procedure .
     under the Treaty,
— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission
     contained in the letter of the competent Head of Unit of
     DG [V, Claude Rouam , dated 20 February 1996 ,
                                                                       Action brought on 18 June 1996 by Neue Maxhiitte
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                               Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( Case T-97/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/40 )
The cause of this action is the Commission 's persistent
failure to take any steps with regard to the complaints                              (Language of the case: German)
lodged by the applicant company, the concessionnaire of a
private television channel, against the State aid received by
all the public television companies in Spain, with which it is         An action against the Commission of the European
in competition , both in the market for advertising market             Communities was brought before the Court of First
and in that for purchasing rights .                                    Instance of the European Communities on 18 June 1996 by
                                                                       Neue Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg
The applicant points out in that respect that in Spain                 ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Rainer M.
publicly-owned television is not very different in content             Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
from privately-owned television . No special public service            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger
responsibilities and duties are placed on the public television        of Messrs Elvinger & Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich .
companies which are not borne by the private television
operators . On the other hand , the restrictions on                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
participating in the advertising field are now the same , and
have been since 1 994, as those imposed on private operators          — annul the Commission 's decision of 13 March 1996 , in
in Spain .                                                                 so far as it concerns the applicant,
After successive contacts with the Commission               staff     — order the defendant to pay the costs .
responsible for dealing with the complaint, the applicant
was informed that that procedure had been halted pending               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the production of research which an external consultant had
been instructed to carry out into the financing of television         The action concerns the classification of loans granted to the
undertakings throughout the Community .                                applicant undertaking in connection with its privatization as
                                                                       aid contrary to Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty.
As a matter of law, the applicant claims that, in accordance
with the relevant case law, the Commission was obliged, in            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
view of the particular difficulties which it seems to have             in Case T-2/96 Neue Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH v.
encountered in carrying out an analysis of the                         Commission , which concerns the same privatization .
incompatibility with the Treaty of the aid complained of, to
initiate the consultative examination procedure provided
for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty . From that viewpoint, the
excessive time which has elapsed since the complaints were
made ( more than four years in the case of the autonomous
television companies and more than two and a half years in
the case of the State-owned company ) is proof in itself that         Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Miguel Vicente Nunez
the Commission appears to be experiencing obvious                          against Commission of the European Communities
difficulties in deciding whether or not the aid is compatible                                ( Case T- 100/96 )
with the common market. Furthermore, the commissioning                                          ( 96/C 247/41 )
of the abovementioned report from an external consultant
bears that out .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
So, in the applicant's view, by failing to initiate the
procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty, the            An action against the Commission of the European
Commission has plainly failed to fulfil its obligations under         Communities was brought before the Court of First
the Treaty and also clearly infringed the rights conferred by         Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1996 by
Community law on the applicant in its position as                     Miguel Vicente Nunez, residing in Krainem ( Belgium ),
complainant. It is unacceptable that the defendant                    represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an
institution should be able to continue a preliminary                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
investigation for several years , since the Community                 Evelyne Korn , 21 Rue de Nassau .
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 8 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 1996 by
                                                                      Gencor Ltd, represented by K. P. E. Lasok QC and D. F.
— annul the Commission decision of 24 May 1995 to                     Hall, of Linklaters & Paines, Solicitors, London, with an
     review the applicant's classification in so far as it sets       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     that classification at grade A 7, step 2 , at 1 June 1991        Maitre Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
     and at grade A 7, step 3 , at 1 June 1993 , with effect from
     28 September 1993 , and not at grade A 7, step 3 , at
     1 June 1991 and at grade A 7, step 4, at the same dates,         The applicant claims that the Court should :
     with effect from 1 June 1991 ,
— order the Commission to pay him interest at an annual               — annul the decision made by the Commission on 24 April
     rate of 8 % on the amounts which he claims are owing to                1996 ('the contested decision') pursuant to Article 8 ( 3 )
     him, with effect from the date on which he ought to have               of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 declaring a
     been entitled to them,                                                 concentration to be incompatible with the common
                                                                            market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement ( case
                                                                            No IV/M.619 Gencor/Lonrho ),
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
The applicant, a former category B official and at present an
official in grade A 7, step 2, contests the appointing                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
authority's refusal to take into account, pursuant to
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, all of his professional
experience at a level equivalent to category A prior to               The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of
entering the Commission 's service, acquired in the Spanish           and established within the Republic of South Africa , seeks
Embassy in Brussels between 1976 and 1986 , for the                   the annulment of a decision made by the Commission on
purposes of his classification when moving from category B            24 April 1996 ( the contested decision ). By Article 1 of the
                                                                      contested decision, the Commission declared that a
to category A. The applicant also points out that he has,
since 5 July 1982, had a diploma in economic and consular             proposed concentration, involving the acquisition by the
sciences .                                                            applicant and Lonrho Pic, a company incorporated under
                                                                      the laws of England, of joint control of a South African
                                                                      company ( Impala Platinum Holdings Limited ) and the
As a successful candidate in competition CES/A/6/89, the              South African companies forming what is known as the
applicant was in June 1991 appointed an official in grade             Lonrho        Platinum   Division   ('the  concentration'),    is
A 7, step 1 . Following the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                      incompatible with the common market and the functioning
Instance of 28 September 1993 in Joined Cases T-103/92,
                                                                      of the EEA Agreement .
T-104/92 and T-105/92 Baiwir, the applicant requested that
his classification be reviewed . The appointing authority
agreed to reclassify him in step 2 of grade A 7 . The applicant,      The applicant submits that the contested decision should be
however believes that he was entitled to be reclassified in           annulled for the following reasons :
step 3 .
                                                                      ( a ) the Commission had no extraterritorial jurisdiction
The applicant argues in this regard that there has been a                    over the concentration under Regulation ( EEC )
breach of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and of                         No 4064/89 ;
Articles 6 and 8 of the Commission decision of 1 September
1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and           ( b ) Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 does not apply to
classification in step at the time of recruitment, as well as a              concentrations that create or lead to 'oligopolistic
breach of the principle of equal treatment.                                  dominance';
                                                                      ( c ) even if it would or might in principle apply to such a
                                                                             concentration, Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 does not
                                                                             empower the Commission to declare a concentration to
                                                                             be incompatible with the common market on the
                                                                             ground that it would create or lead to ' oligopolistic
Action brought on 28 June 1996 by Gencor Ltd against the                     dominance';
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T- 102/96 )                            ( d ) even if Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 does empower
                          ( 96/C 247/42 )                                    the Commission to declare a concentation to be
                                                                             incompatible with the common market on that ground ,
                                                                             the facts do not support such a conclusion in the present
                (Language of the case: English)                              case ;
An action against the Commission of the European                      ( e ) the Commission erred in law in refusing to accept the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                            commitments offered by the applicant;


title: Case T-142/16: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Dröge and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Declaration of intent and two Commission decisions on the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the European Union and the United States (TTIP) — Right of access of staff of members of national parliaments to certain confidential documents relating to the TTIP negotiations — Measures against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/36

         Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Dröge and Others v Commission
   (Case T-142/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Declaration of intent and two Commission decisions on the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the European Union and the United States (TTIP) - Right of access of staff of members of national parliaments to certain confidential documents relating to the TTIP negotiations - Measures against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 112/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Katharina Dröge (Berlin, Germany), Britta Haßelmann (Berlin), Anton Hofreiter (Berlin) (represented by: Professor W. Cremer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, R. Vidal Puig and B. Hartmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of the Commission’s declaration of intent concerning the conclusion of a treaty binding on the contracting parties — the European Union and the United States of America — as regards the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), and, in the alternative, a declaration that it is contrary to EU law; (ii) annulment of the Commission’s prior decision concerning the submission of the aforementioned declaration of intent on the authorisation of the agreement and (iii) annulment of the Commission’s oral decision connected with the conclusion of a treaty or a non-binding political agreement with the United States of America on the ‘TTIP access regime’ and classifying that regime as binding under EU law, in so far as it strictly prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States from being accompanied by vetted staff, including staff of their political group, when viewing documents relating to the TTIP in reading rooms established for that purpose.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Katharina Dröge, Britta Haßelmann and Anton Hofreiter are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 13.6.2016.


               19.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/9

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 April 2013 in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State
   (Case E-7/13)
   2013/C 270/07
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 April 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 April 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with EEA Law, and specifically with Article 6 of Council Directive 2003/98/EC, on the re-use of public sector information (cf. the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee, No 105/2005, amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement), to charge a fee on account of each mechanical enquiry for information from the register if no calculation of the ‘total income’ and the ‘cost’, in the sense of Article 6 of the Directive, is available at the time of the determination of the fee?

               2.

               Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ subject to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, no account is taken of:

                           (a)

                           income accruing to the State when documents are collected, in the form of fees paid by individuals and undertakings for the recording of contracts in the registers of legal deeds; and

                           (b)

                           income accruing to the State when documents are collected, in the form of taxes which are levied as stamp duties on recorded legal deeds at the time when individuals and undertakings apply to have them recorded in the registers of legal deeds?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, account is taken of costs incurred by a public sector body in connection with the collection of documents which it is legally obliged to collect, irrespective of whether or not individuals or undertakings request to re-use them?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to the article is determined, the legislature sets the amount of the fee in legislation without any particular amount being made subject to substantive examination?

               5.

               Would it be compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to the Directive is determined, appropriate account were taken of a general requirement in national legislation that public sector bodies be self-financing?

               6.

               If the answer to Question No 5 is in the affirmative, what does this involve in further detail and what cost elements in public sector operations may be taken into account in this context?


title: Case F-70/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/16

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission
   (Case F-70/09)
   2009/C 244/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vladimir Nikolchov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Hammouche, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement fixing the applicant’s place of recruitment at Aix-la-Chapelle (Germany) and fixing the period of daily allowance at 120 days.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement No R/9/09 of 21 April 2009 dismissing the applicant’s claim seeking the fixing of his place of recruitment in Bulgaria and fixing the period of daily allowance in accordance with Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance amounts totalling EUR 6 942,32, or any other amount fixed by the Court of First Instance, in addition to default interest as from the date of the lodging of the application until the date of payment;

               —

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


title: Case T-164/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Calberson GE v Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/32

         Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Calberson GE v Commission
   (Case T-164/14)
   2014/C 184/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Calberson GE (Villeneuve-la-Garenne, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Commission to pay it the following amounts:

                           —

                           financial costs generated by the late release of supply securities: EUR 7 691,60 including tax;

                           —

                           default interest to run from the due date of the transport invoices to the time of their effective payment: EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17;

                           —

                           ‘default interest on default interest’: 2% per month of late payment of the aforementioned default interest (EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17);

                           —

                           balance of one transport invoice: EUR 17 400 including tax;

                           —

                           differential of one rate of exchange: EUR 30 580,41 including tax;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant was, pursuant to Regulations Nos 111/1999 (1) and 1799/1999, (2) awarded a contract relating to the transport of beef to the Russian Federation under the programme to supply agricultural products to that country.
   Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 January 2013 in Case C-623/11 Geodis Calberson GE (not yet published in the ECR), which conferred upon the European Union courts jurisdiction to rule on actions for compensation for damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the national intervention agency, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage it suffered in the performance of that contract.
   The applicant thus argues that the national intervention agency committed acts of misconduct — namely (i) the late release of securities for performance of the contract supplied by the applicant (ii) the late payment of uncontested invoices, (iii) the non-payment of certain uncontested invoices and (iv) the settlement of certain invoices in a currency other than that stipulated in the contract — causing the applicant to suffer damage.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 of 16 August 1999 on the supply of beef to Russia (OJ 1999 L 217, p. 20).


title: Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG
   (Case C-447/04)
   (2004/C 314/10)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) of 30 September 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG.
   The Landesgericht Innsbruck asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
   Is Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the insurance company against which a claim has been made is always subject to a three-month time-limit to deal with the matter, even in the case of a simple factual and legal situation, or that this refers merely to a ‘setting of the due date’, which does not exclude earlier settlement of the claim by the insurance company after the setting of an ‘appropriate’ time-limit for payment which is also within the three-month period?

      (1)  OJ L 181, p. 65.


title: Case C-189/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques
   (Case C-189/13)
   2013/C 164/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raquel Gianni Da Silva

      Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

      Question referred

   Does European Union law preclude national legislation under which illegal entry by a third-country national who has not been subjected to the coercive measures provided for in Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment? (1)

      (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case C-327/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Burgo Group SpA v Illochroma SA, in liquidation, Jérôme Theetten, acting in his capacity as liquidator of Illochroma SA (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Definition of ‘establishment’ — Group of companies — Establishment — Right to request the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings — Criteria — Person empowered to request the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/17

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Burgo Group SpA v Illochroma SA, in liquidation, Jérôme Theetten, acting in his capacity as liquidator of Illochroma SA
      (Case C-327/13) (1)

      ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Definition of ‘establishment’ - Group of companies - Establishment - Right to request the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings - Criteria - Person empowered to request the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings))
      (2014/C 395/21)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Burgo Group SpA

         Defendants: Illochroma SA, in liquidation, Jérôme Theetten, acting in his capacity as liquidator of Illochroma SA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that, where winding-up proceedings are opened in respect of a company in a Member State other than that in which it has its registered office, secondary insolvency proceedings may also be opened in respect of that company in the other Member State in which its registered office is situated and in which it possesses legal personality.

                  2)

                  Article 29(b) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted to the effect that the question as to which person or authority is empowered to seek the opening of secondary proceedings must be determined on the basis of the national law of the Member State within the territory of which the opening of such proceedings is sought. The right to seek the opening of secondary proceedings cannot, however, be restricted to creditors who have their domicile or registered office within the Member State in whose territory the relevant establishment is situated, or to creditors whose claims arise from the operation of that establishment.

                  3)

                  Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted to the effect that, where the main insolvency proceedings are winding-up proceedings, whether the court before which the action seeking the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings has been brought may take account of criteria as to appropriateness is governed by the national law of the Member State within the territory of which the opening of secondary proceedings is sought. However, when establishing the conditions for the opening of secondary proceedings, Member States must comply with EU law and, in particular, its general principles, as well as the provisions of that regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-438/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 October 2012 — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 October 2012 — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber
   (Case C-438/12)
   2012/C 379/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Irmengard Weber

      Defendant: Mechthilde Weber

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the scope of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters extend also to cases in which two parties in one action each have the role of defendant because both parties have been sued by a third party, and in the other action have the roles of claimant and defendant? In such a situation are there proceedings ‘between the same parties’, or must the different claims raised by the claimant against the two defendants in the first action be examined separately, so that there cannot be taken to be proceedings ‘between the same parties’?

               2.

               Are there proceedings involving ‘the same cause of action’ within the meaning of Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 if the claims and arguments in the two actions are indeed different, but

                           (a)

                           the same preliminary issue has to be answered in order to decide both actions or

                           (b)

                           in one action, by a claim in the alternative, a declaration is sought as to a legal relationship which features in the other action as a preliminary issue?

               3.

               Are there proceedings which have as their object a right in rem in immovable property within the meaning of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 if a declaration is sought that the defendant did not validly exercise a right in rem of pre-emption over land situated in Germany which indisputably exists in German law?

               4.

               Is the court second seised, when making its decision under Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, and hence before the question of jurisdiction is decided by the court first seised, obliged to ascertain whether the court first seised lacks jurisdiction because of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, because such lack of jurisdiction of the court first seised would, under Article 35(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, lead to a judgment of the court first seised not being recognised? Is Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 not applicable for the court second seised if the court second seised comes to the conclusion that the court first seised lacks jurisdiction because of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001?

               5.

               Is the court second seised, when making its decision under Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, and hence before the question of jurisdiction is decided by the court first seised, obliged to examine the complaint of one party that the other party acted in abuse of process by bringing proceedings before the court first seised? Is Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 not applicable for the court second seised if the court second seised comes to the conclusion that the bringing of proceedings before the court first seised was an abuse of process?

               6.

               Does the application of Article 28(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 presuppose that the court second seised has previously decided that Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply in the specific case?

               7.

               May account be taken in the exercise of the discretion allowed by Article 28(1) of Regulation No 44/2001

                           (a)

                           of the fact that the court first seised is situated in a Member State in which proceedings statistically last considerably longer than in the Member State in which the court second seised is situated,

                           (b)

                           of the fact that, in the assessment of the court second seised, the law of the Member State in which the court second seised is situated is applicable,

                           (c)

                           of the age of one of the parties,

                           (d)

                           of the prospects of success of the action before the court first seised?

               8.

               In the interpretation and application of Articles 27 and 28 of Regulation No 44/2001, in addition to the aim of avoiding irreconcilable or contradictory judgments, must the second claimant’s entitlement to justice be taken into account?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-456/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Sea Handling v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial access)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Sea Handling v Commission
   (Case T-456/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial access))
   (2015/C 155/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sea Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented initially by B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Grespan and C. Zadra, and subsequently by D. Grespan and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 June 2013 refusing to grant Sea Handling access to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sea Handling SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case C-49/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 January 2013 — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 January 2013 — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.
   (Case C-49/13)
   2013/C 141/16
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MF 7 a.s.

      Defendant: MAFRA a.s.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(2)(d) of … Directive [2008/95/EC] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for the assessment of whether a trade mark applicant acted in good faith, only circumstances apparent before the date or on the date of the submission of the trade mark application are relevant, or can circumstances which occurred after the application was submitted also be used as supporting evidence of the fact that the applicant acted in good faith?

               2.

               Is it necessary to apply the judgment in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 (2) generally to all cases where it is being assessed whether a trade mark proprietor agreed to conduct which may result in weakening or limitation of his exclusive rights ?

               3.

               Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right?

               4.

               In so far as circumstances occurring after a trade mark application was submitted may also be relevant for the purposes of the assessment of whether the trade mark applicant acted in good faith, is it possible, in the alternative, to infer the fact that the applicant acted in good faith from the situation in which the proprietor of the earlier trade mark knowingly tolerated the existence of the contested trade mark for a period of at least ten years?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

      (2)  ECR I-08691.


title: Case C-701/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 31 December 2015 — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 31 December 2015 — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA
   (Case C-701/15)
   (2016/C 136/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

      Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

      Question referred

   Does Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), which requires the application of the EU rules governing the award of public contracts to activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provision of airports to air carriers, as defined in the national case-law referred to in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 above, preclude national provisions, such as those set out in Articles 4 and 11 of Legislative Decree No 18/1999, which do not require a prior public selection procedure to be conducted for every allocation, including temporary allocations, of areas within airports for the purpose of such activities?

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2003 in Case C-389/00: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 23 and 25 EC — Charge having an equivalent effect- Export of waste — Basle Convention — Regulation No 259/93 — Contribution to a solidarity fund)

text:
C 101/4                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              26.4.2003
court between Adolf Truley GmbH and Bestattung Wien                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
GmbH, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council
Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199,                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate                                          of 27 February 2003
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
                                                                             in Case C-389/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ruled:
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 23 and 25 EC —
                                                                             Charge having an equivalent effect- Export of waste — Basle
1.    The term ‘needs in the general interest’ in the second subpara-        Convention — Regulation No 259/93 — Contribution to a
      graph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of                                              solidarity fund)
      14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public
      supply contracts is an autonomous concept of Community law.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/07)
2.    The activities of funeral undertakers may meet a need in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      general interest. The fact that a regional or local authority is
      legally obliged to arrange funerals — and, where necessary, to
      bear the costs of those funerals — where they have not been            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      arranged within a certain period after a death certificate has                              in the European Court Reports)
      been issued constitutes evidence that there is such a need in the
      general interest.
                                                                             In Case C-389/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: J.C. Schieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:
3.    The existence of significant competition does not, of itself, allow    B. Muttelsee-Schön, assisted by H.-J. Koch): Application for a
      the conclusion to be drawn that there is no need in the general        declaration that, by enacting the Gesetz über die Überwachung
      interest, not having an industrial or commercial character. The        und Kontrolle der grenzüberschreitenden Verbringung von
      national court must assess whether or not there is such a              Abfällen (Abfallverbringungsgesetz) (Act on the supervision
      need, taking account of all the relevant legal and factual             and control of transboundary shipments of waste; ‘the waste
      circumstances, such as those prevailing at the time of establish-      shipment act’) of 30 September 1994, BGBl. 1994 I, p. 2771),
      ment of the body concerned and the conditions under which it           establishing a solidarity fund for the return of waste and
      exercises its activity.                                                requiring exporters of waste, including those exporting to
                                                                             other Member States, to contribute to that fund, the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             Articles 23 EC and 25 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
4.    A mere review does not satisfy the criterion of management             composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the
      supervision in the third indent of the second subparagraph of          Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas
      Article 1(b) of Directive 93/36. That criterion is, however,           (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      satisfied where the public authorities supervise not only the          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      annual accounts of the body concerned but also its conduct from        on 27 February 2003, in which it:
      the point of view of proper accounting, regularity, economy,
      efficiency and expediency and where those public authorities are
      authorised to inspect the business premises and facilities of that     1.    Declares that, by subjecting shipments of waste to other
      body and to report the results of those inspections to a regional            Member States to a mandatory contribution to the solidarity
      authority which holds, through another company, all the shares               fund for the return of waste established by the Gesetz über
      in the body in question.                                                     die Überwachung und Kontrolle der grenzüberschreitenden
                                                                                Verbringung von Abfällen (Abfallverbringungsgesetz) of
                                                                                30 September 1994, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC and 25 EC;
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.


title: Case T-352/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Novácke chemické závody v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of enforcement of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/29

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Novácke chemické závody v Commission
   (Case T-352/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of enforcement of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2009/C 312/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novácke chemické závody, a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Černejová, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of enforcement of the Commission decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium-based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-169/02: Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Cervecería Modelo, S.A. de C.V. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 180/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The contested decision introduces an obligation on the                    —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs for production                          OHIM of 6 March 2002;
animals to provide an indication of the precise quantities of all
the raw material used in their products in order to protect
public health by improving the traceability of the ingredients.           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
According to the applicant, the effect of that measure is to
oblige disclosure of basic know-how and business secrets of
manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs.
In support of its application, the applicant claims breach of
several rights guaranteed by Community law and of objectives              Pleas in law and main arguments
pursued by the Treaty. Furthermore, the contested directive
runs counter to the safeguarding of undistorted competition
and the encouragement of technical research and development.              Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
Moreover, it disregards property rights and the right freely to           munity trade mark:
pursue an economic activity. The applicant claims, finally, that
the directive runs counter to the objective of improving
agricultural products and protecting the environment.                     The Community trade          Community figurative trade mark
                                                                          mark concerned:              No 1.178.425, which depicts a
                                                                                bottle of beer bearing the words
The applicant maintains, moreover, that the contested measure                                          ‘NEGRA MODELO’ on the label,
is disproportionate. According to the applicant, the directive                                         for products falling within Class-
is not capable of attaining the objective of protecting public                                         es 25 (clothing), 32 (beer) and 42
health and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to                                               (services related to bars, res-
achieve such an objective. The applicant further claims that                                           taurants and nightclubs)
the directive does not of itself ensure the quality of the
products nor improves the traceability of the ingredients and
that it places a disproportionate burden with regard to                   Proprietor of the right to   MODELO CONTINENTE HIPER-
labelling.                                                                the trade mark or sign       MERCADOS S.A.
                                                                          asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                          sition in the opposition
Finally, the applicant claims that the measure is based on an             proceedings:
erroneous legal basis. In its view, Article 37 of the EC Treaty
should be chosen as the legal basis instead of Article 152 of
the Treaty in view of the fact that the contested directive bears         Trade mark or sign           Portuguese figurative marks
no relationship to veterinary or plant health matters.                    asserted by way of oppo-     No 295.800 and 295.804, which
                                                                          sition in the opposition     distinguish goods in Classes 25
                                                                          proceedings:                 (clothing, including footwear) and
                                                                                33 (syrups, beer and non-
                                                                                alcoholic beverages) of the inter-
                                                                                national classification respectively
Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Cervecerı́a Modelo,                      Decision of the Oppo-        Provisional refusal to register the
S.A. de C.V. against Office for the Harmonization of the
                                                                          sition Division:             Community trade mark in issue
    Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                to distinguish ‘beer’ and regis-
                                                                                tration in respect of ‘clothing’ and
                         (Case T-169/02)                                                               ‘services related to bars, res-
                                                                                taurants and nightclubs’
                         (2002/C 180/57)
                                                                          Decision of the Board of     Decision of the Opposition Div-
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        Appeal:                      ision upheld
                                                                          Grounds of claim:            Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likeli-
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                             hood of confusion)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
30 May 2002 by Cervecerı́a Modelo, S.A. de C.V., whose
registered office is in Mexico, D.F., represented by Carlos Lamo
Devesa and Antonio Velázquez Ibáñez.