title: Case T-401/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/38

         Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto v Commission
   (Case T-401/08)
   (2008/C 313/69)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Pokela, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision C(2008) 3435 final of the Commission of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698-CISAC in its entirety, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay Teoston's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final (Case COMP/C2/38.698 CISAC) of 16 July 2008, according to which the undertakings mentioned therein have infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by using in their reciprocal agreements membership restrictions contained in the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers model contract (‘the CISAC model contract’) or by applying those membership restrictions in practice.
   The Commission did not state sufficient reasons for its decision. In its decision, the Commission did not analyse the points of departure and the particular features of the various authors' associations which differed from one another. The Commission incorrectly considered that the reasons for this situation are restrictions on competition when it is a result of natural market development. Teostso has described to the Commission the nature of its business environment and the special circumstances relating to the music market in Finland, but the Commission made no mention of them at all in its decision. Since the Commission did not take account of the rationale for the way in which Teosto operated in the prevailing circumstances, Teosto considers that the grounds for the decision are not clear from the Commission's reasoning.
   The Commission states that authors' associations whose membership conditions infringe Article 81(1) have done so either by including conditions in the agreement which are considered by the Commission to be prohibited or by continuing to apply such conditions despite the fact that they have been removed from the contracts. The Commission failed to specify by which of those two methods it considers that Teosto infringed Article 81(1). Further the decision does not indicate the grounds on which the Commission considered that Teosto had actually applied the membership conditions. There is an error of law in the decision because the Commission should be able to state more precisely what kind of infringements it considers the addressee of the decision to have committed and on what grounds.
   The Commission's reasoning is contradictory as regards to the alleged coordination of regional restrictions.
   The Commission has incorrectly applied Article 81 EC. Teosto has not infringed Article 81(1) by applying the membership conditions similar to those in Article 11(II) of the CISAC model contract, as the Commission claims. Teosta has not applied membership conditions considered to be prohibited by the Commission. The object of the membership conditions was not to restrict competition nor have they had such an effect.
   Teosto has not infringed Article 81(1) by coordinating regional restrictions on licensing rights as the Commission claims. The regional restrictions were not the result of coordination. The object of the regional limits was not to restrict competition nor did they have such an effect. Restricting a mandate to a particular area, even if the national territory of a party to the agreement, is not prohibited. Such a practice has been permitted and, in Teosto's view, is the most logical solution, based on normal market conditions.
   Teosto has not infringed Article 81(1) by applying exclusivity clauses similar to those in 1(I) and (II) of the CISAC's model contract. The exclusivity clause is competition neutral as its object was not to restrict competition nor did it have such an effect. Teosto did not apply an exclusivity clause; the extension of the regional scope of its own operations and the mandates granted to the parties to the contract have been dictated by the reasons of normal market logic.
   If Teosto were to be considered to have infringed the prohibition in Article 81(1) in some way, the practice would however be authorised on the basis of Article 81(3). The present system and in particular that contained in the mandates' regional limits produce significant advantages in terms of efficiency, which benefit consumers without eliminating competition and without going further than necessary in order to achieve efficiency advantages.
   The Commission has exceeded the limits of its competence by requiring the authors' associations to renegotiate the contracts. The Commission cannot order effective measures to change a practice which is not contrary to Article 81.


title: Case C-52/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2017 — VTB Bank (Austria) AG

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2017 — VTB Bank (Austria) AG
   (Case C-52/17)
   (2017/C 144/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: VTB Bank (Austria) AG

      Respondent: Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsicht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are provisions of European Union secondary legislation (in particular, for example, Article 64 or 65(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (1)) applicable to the levying by the authorities of interest pursuant to a Member State’s legal provisions under which a credit institution, on exceeding the limit for large exposures under Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, (2) is to have interest of 2 per cent of the excess over the limit for large exposures, calculated on an annual basis, levied on it for 30 days?

               2.

               Does EU law (in particular, Article 395(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, as corrected by the Corrigendum (OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6), preclude a national provision such as that which was contained in Paragraph 97(1)(4) of the Bankwesengesetz (Law on Banking) (as amended by BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) I No 532/2014) where, despite the fact that the conditions for applying the exemption provided for in Article 395(5) are satisfied, (absorption) interest is levied for a breach of Article 395(1)?

               3.

               Is Article 48(3) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2014/17) (SSM Framework Regulation) (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ can be deemed to exist simply where an undertaking submits a report to the supervisor, or can a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ be deemed to exist where a supervisory decision has already been rendered in a parallel procedure for similar breaches?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338.

      (2)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1.

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).


title: Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission (Transport — Directive 2010/40/EU — Intelligent Transport Systems — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 — Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles — Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013 — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 — Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users — Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13) (1)

   ((Transport - Directive 2010/40/EU - Intelligent Transport Systems - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 - Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 - Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013))
   (2015/C 398/49)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-659/13, application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013, and, in Case T-660/13, application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-341/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2008 — Dr Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2008 — Dr Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe
   (Case C-341/08)
   (2008/C 260/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Dortmund
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr Domnica Petersen

      Defendant: Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe
   Questions referred

               1.

               May the statutory regulation of a maximum age limit for admission to practice a profession (here: to work as a panel dentist) be an objective and reasonable measure to protect a legitimate aim (here: the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme) and an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC if it is derived solely from an assumption (1), based on ‘general experience’, that a general drop in performance occurs from a certain age, without any account being taken of the individual performance of the person in question?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, may a legitimate (legislative) aim within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC (here: the protection of the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme) be taken to exist even where that aim was entirely irrelevant to the national legislature in the exercise of its legislative discretion?

               3.

               If Questions 1 and 2 are to be answered in the negative, may a law enacted prior to the adoption of Directive 2000/78/EC which is incompatible with that directive be disapplied, by virtue of the primacy of European law, even where the national law transposing the directive (here: Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz — General Law on equal treatment) makes no provision for such a legal consequence in the event of a breach of the prohibition of discrimination?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case F-93/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Taghani v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Selection board’s decision not to admit to the assessment tests — Remedies — Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint — Admissibility — Amendment of the competition notice after admission tests held — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Taghani v Commission
   (Case F-93/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Selection board’s decision not to admit to the assessment tests - Remedies - Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint - Admissibility - Amendment of the competition notice after admission tests held - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)
   2013/C 147/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jamal Taghani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AST/111/10, of 15 June 2011, not to admit Mr Taghani to the assessment tests;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay EUR 1 000 to Mr Taghani;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 46.


title: Case F-102/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Urena de Poznanski v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under other pension schemes — Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/47

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Urena de Poznanski v Commission
      (Case F-102/13) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under other pension schemes - Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Soldimar Urena de Poznanski (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and last by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the additional pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 24 of 25/1/2014, p. 40.


title: Case T-95/09 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 January 2010 — United Phosphorus v Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414 — Extension of suspension of operation)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/32

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 January 2010 — United Phosphorus v Commission
   (Case T-95/09 R II)
   (Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Extension of suspension of operation)
   2010/C 51/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Phosphorus Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and N. Rasmussen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the extension of the suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The suspension of operation laid down in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T-95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 30 November 2010, but shall not extend beyond the date of delivery of the decision in the main proceedings or beyond the date of the formal conclusion of the accelerated procedure, initiated with regard to napropamide, under Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included in its Annex I (OJ 2008 L 15, p. 5).

               2.

               The costs shall be reserved.


title: Case C-121/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien by order of 21 March 2000 in the criminal proceedings against Walter Hahn

text:
C 163/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht                civil subsonic jet aeroplanes’ as including ‘civil subsonic jet
Innere Stadt Wien by order of 21 March 2000 in the                      aeroplanes’ as defined at Article 2(1) thereof that have been
         criminal proceedings against Walter Hahn                       modified to meet Chapter 3 standards by being completely re-
                                                                        engined with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three
                        (Case C-121/00)                                 having regard in particular to:
                        (2000/C 163/27)                                 I.   the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC Treaty
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  II. the principle of equal treatment
European Communities by order of 21 March 2000 by the
Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien (Inner City of Vienna District         III. the principle of proportionality
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March
2000, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against          IV. the compatibility of that provision with the Agreement
Walter Hahn on the following questions:                                      establishing the World Trade Organisation and in particu-
                                                                             lar the Agreement on Technical barriers to Trade annexed
Is Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1) laying                   thereto.
down the health conditions for the production and the placing
on the market of fishery products, which has been incorporated
into national law by the Verordnung der Bundesministerin für            (1) OJ L 115, 04.05.1999, p. 1 and Corrigendum OJ L 120,
Frauenangelegenheiten und Verbraucherschutz über Hygiene-                   08.05.1999, p. 47.
bestimmungen für das Inverkehrbringen von Fischerzeugnis-
sen (Fischhygieneverordnung, BGBl. No 260/1997) (Order of
the Federal Minister for Women and Consumer Protection
concerning health regulations for the placing on the market of
fishery products), to be interpreted in its entirety as precluding
the application of provisions of national law which, in respect
of fishery products not chemically preserved (in particular,
smoked salmon), lay down a policy of zero tolerance towards
contamination of such foods with listeria monocytogenes?                Action brought on 30 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(1) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 15.
                                                                                (Case C-124/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/29)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court,                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March
Dublin, by order of that court of 21 March 2000, in the                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
case of Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and                     represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
Omega Aviation Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation                  its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
                           Authority                                    civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                        (Case C-122/00)                                 Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                        (2000/C 163/28)
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court, Dublin              — declare that, by not adopting and by not communicating
of 21 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry                   to the Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the
on 23 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and Omega Aviation                   to comply fully with Directive 97/54/EC of the European
Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation Authority, on the                    Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 1997 (1)
following question:                                                          amending, as regards the maximum design speed of
                                                                             wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, Council Directives
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1) of                74/150/EEC, 74/151/EEC, 74/152/EEC, 74/346/EEC,
the 29th day of April 1999 on the registration and operation                 74/347/EEC, 75/321/EEC, 75/322/EEC, 76/432/EEC,
within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet                  76/763/EEC, 77/311/EEC, 77/537/EEC, 78/764/EEC,
aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as                    78/933/EEC, 79/532/EEC, 79/533/EEC, 80/720/EEC,
meeting the standards of Volume 1 Part II Chapter 3 of Annex                 86/297/EEC, 86/415/EEC and 89/173/EEC, the Hellenic
16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation third                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
edition (July 1993) invalid is so far as it defines ‘recertificated          Treaty;


title: Case T-395/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/32

         Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)
   (Case T-395/12)
   2012/C 355/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fetim BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solid Floor Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June 2012 in case R 884/2011-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Solidfloor The professional’s choice’, for goods in class 19 — Community trade mark application No 5667837

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2390415 of the figurative mark ‘SOLID floor’, for goods in classes 19 and 37; Trade name ‘Solid Floor Ltd’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom; Domain name ‘SOLID floor’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T -101/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Castell del Remei v OHIM

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/16

         Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Castell del Remei v OHIM
   (Case T -101/06)
   (2006/C 121/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Castell del Remei, S.L. (Lérida, Spain) (represented by: Fernand de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Donatienne Moreau, Jorge Grau Mora, Alejandro Angulo Lafora, Maite Ferrándiz Avendaño, María Baylos Morales and Antonio Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Roda (Haro, La Rioja, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006, upholding the refusal of the application for Community trade mark No 2 325 256 ‘Castell del Remei (figurative)’, which should consequently be registered by OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: Castell del Remei

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative trade mark ‘Castell del Remei ODA’ (application No 2 325 256) for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 33
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Roda, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘RODA’ (No 1 757 553), ‘RODA I’ (No 2 006 616), ‘RODA II’ (No 2 006 615) and ‘BODEGAS RODA’ (No 137 050) for goods in Class 33, and the trade name ‘BODEGAS RODA, S.A.’‘for the undertaking producing and maturing wines …’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld, refusal of registration
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark


title: Case C-168/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid — Spain) — Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Failure to raise the unfair nature of a term during arbitration proceedings — Possibility of raising that objection in the context of an action brought against the arbitration award)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid — Spain) — Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL
   (Case C-168/05) (1)

   (Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Failure to raise the unfair nature of a term during arbitration proceedings - Possibility of raising that objection in the context of an action brought against the arbitration award)
   (2006/C 326/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elisa María Mostaza Claro

      Defendant: Centro Móvil Milenium SL
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Madrid — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of, and point 1(q) of the annex to, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the use of unfair terms — Invalidity of an arbitration agreement not pleaded by the consumer during the arbitration proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.


title: Case T-566/15: Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Excalibur City v OHIM — Ferrero (MERLIN'S KINDERWELT)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/67

         Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Excalibur City v OHIM — Ferrero (MERLIN'S KINDERWELT)
   (Case T-566/15)
   (2015/C 398/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Excalibur City s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by:E. EnginDeniz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MERLIN’S KINDERWELT’– Application for registration No 1 1 2 02  066

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 1617/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision so as to reject the opposition of the Opponent;

                  in eventu

               —

               annul the contested decision as well as the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2014, opposition No B 002152844;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-121/08: Action brought on 10 March 2008 — PC-Ware Information Technologies BV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/27

         Action brought on 10 March 2008 — PC-Ware Information Technologies BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-121/08)
   (2008/C 116/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: PC-Ware Information Technologies BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Devillé, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Directorate-General of the European Commission, communicated to the applicant by letter of 11 January 2008, which rejected the applicant's tender for public procurement contract DIGIT/R2/2007/022 — LAR 2007 and awarded the contract to the successful tender;

               —

               Declare that the Commission's action was unlawful and gives rise to the Commission's liability;

               —

               In the alternative, if the contract has already been carried out when the Court gives judgment or the decision can no longer be declared void, order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 654 962,38 as compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant in regard to that procedure;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and other costs even if the action is dismissed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant took part in public procurement procedure DIGIT/R2/2007/022 — LAR 2007 — Large account reseller Microsoft products (LAR 2007) (OJ 2007 S 183-223062), whose objective was to establish a framework contract for a single source purchase channel, covering the acquisition of Microsoft software products and licences. The applicant contests the Commission's decision to award that contract to another undertaking.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, first, that insufficient reasons are given for the decision. The applicant states that upon the submission of its offer it stated expressly that it gave the highest possible reduction on the basis of Article 40 of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 on trade practices and consumer information and protection, which prohibits sales at a loss. The Commission failed to give sufficient reasons in the decision with regard to the application of that prohibition and compliance with the principle of equal treatment.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that it is apparent that the successful offer infringes Article 40 of the abovementioned Belgian Law of 14 July 1991. According to the applicant, the Commission should have refused the successful offer pursuant to Article 55 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), Article 139(1) and Article 146(4) of Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) and the principles of good administration.

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

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


title: Case C-389/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lapin Lääninoikeus by order of that court of 5 October 1999 in the case of Sulo Rundgren

text:
C 6/14                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lapin Lää-                  4. What effect, in the interpretation of Articles 28a and 33(2)
ninoikeus by order of that court of 5 October 1999 in the                    of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, does the fact have that
                      case of Sulo Rundgren                                  Finland and Sweden have agreed, together with the other
                                                                             Nordic States, in accordance with Article 36(3) of the said
                                                                             regulation and Article 23 of the Nordic Social Security
                         (Case C-389/99)                                     Convention, to waive inter alia all reimbursement of the
                                                                             costs of care?
                           (2000/C 6/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  5. If Articles 28a and 33(2) of the aforesaid regulation apply
European Communities by an order of the Lapin Lääninoikeus                   so that Mr Rundgren may be charged national pension
(Lapland Administrative Court) of 5 October 1999, which was                  and sickness insurance contributions in Finland, may he
received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1999, for a                     nevertheless apply under Article 17a of the regulation
preliminary ruling in the case of Sulo Rundgren on the                       retrospectively to be exempted from the scope of the
following questions:                                                         legislation of his State of residence, Finland, or must the
                                                                             application have been made before determination of his
                                                                             contribution obligations under Finnish legislation? In the
1. Is the EC Treaty or Regulation No (EEC) 1408/71 on social                 latter case, what importance does the fact have that
    security (1) or Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of                Mr Rundgren was possibly not aware of the possibility
    movement for workers within the Community (2) appli-                     given by Article 17a of the regulation?
    cable in the situation at issue even though Mr Rundgren
    already moved from Sweden to Finland on 29 September
    1989, that is, before the Agreement on the European
    Economic Area entered into force with respect to Finland?           6. Are Article 39 EC (formerly Article 48 of the EC Treaty)
                                                                             and in particular Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
                                                                             Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is the expression             workers within the Community to be interpreted as
    ‘nor is any pension payable’ in Article 28a of Regulation
                                                                             meaning that Finland is not entitled in the present case to
    No 1408/71 then to be interpreted as already being
                                                                             charge Mr Rundgren national pension insurance contri-
    fulfilled                                                                butions and sickness insurance contributions in accordance
                                                                             with its own national legislation?
    (a) if Mr Rundgren is not entitled to a national pension, or
    (b) if he is not entitled to a pension based on gainful             7. Is Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 or Article 12
         employment, or                                                      EC (formerly Article 6 of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted
                                                                             as meaning that Mr Rundgren has in the present case
    (c) is it fulfilled only if both point (a) and point (b) hold            become the object of prohibited discrimination?
         good for him at the same time?
    In interpreting the aforesaid expression, is it also to be          8. May Mr Rundgren rely directly on the EC Treaty or on
    taken that entitlement to a pension means in this case                   other Community law on the ground that he has possibly
    Mr Rundgren’s right in principle to a pension in Finland,                had to pay contributions of a tax nature on the same basis
    in which case no account is taken of his actual circum-                  both to Finland and to Sweden as a result of the different
    stances, such as the effect on the acquisition of a pension              methods adopted by Finland and Sweden in financing
    in Finland of the pension and annuity income received by                 social security schemes?
    him from Sweden, or does entitlement to a pension mean
    the specific circumstances, in which case the effect of the
    income received by him from Sweden on the acquisition
    of a pension in Finland is taken into account in interpreting
    the expression?                                                     (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                            application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
                                                                            self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
3. Do the contributions and similar payments referred to in                 within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
    Article 33(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 include,                   p. 416).
    besides contributions charged for the receipt of social             (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on
    security in respect of sickness and maternity (in Finland,              freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ,
    sickness insurance contributions), also contributions                   English Special Edition 1968 (11), p. 475).
    charged in respect of old age, invalidity and unemployment
    (in Finland, national pension insurance contributions)? If
    the answer to that question is negative, are the latter
    contributions possibly to be waived under some other
    article of the regulation, regard being had in particular to
    the scope of the regulation apparent from Article 4(1)(b),
    (c) and (g) thereof?


title: Case F-60/12: Action brought on 08 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/34

         Action brought on 08 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-60/12)
   2012/C 243/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Guerrieri Piaceri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to grant the Applicant six promotion points under the 2011 promotion procedure, the revision of the appraisal report and the attribution of the necessary points in order to be promoted to the grade AST 2.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appraisal report appraising the Applicant for the period 01.01.2010 — 31.12.2010 and the decision awarding the applicant two promotion points for the same period;

               —

               as a consequence of the annulment, order the defendant to undertake a further examination of the appraisal report of the Applicant, awarding the necessary points for promoting her to AST2 with retroactive effect from 01.01.2011;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the sum estimated ex aequo et bono EUR 20 000,00 (including procedure costs).


title: Case C-193/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversicherungsamt

text:
23.8.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/7
1.    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November                   Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Ireland against the
      1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of                     Commission of the European Communities
      the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as
      amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of
      26 July 1994 imposes no limit on the length of time by which
                                                                                (Case C-199/03)
      a time-limit may be extended for the benefit of an exporter
      under Article 47(4) of the regulation. It is for the competent
      national authorities to set the length of extensions of time in
      accordance with the particular circumstances of the case, taking                                 (2003/C 200/13)
      particular account of the degree of diligence with which the
      exporter seeking the extension of time has acted, the nature of
      the difficulties confronting the exporter and the amount of time
      which it will reasonably take to overcome those difficulties.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
2.    Exporters have no right to apply directly to national courts for        Communities on 13 May 2003 by Ireland, represented by
      an extension of time of a specific duration but do have a legal         D. J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC and
      right of recourse against decisions taken by competent national         P. McGarry, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
      authorities under Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87, as            bourg.
      amended by Regulation No 1829/94. The detailed rules and
      parameters of any such procedure shall be governed by the
      national law of the Member States, in accordance with the               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      principles of effectiveness and equivalence as defined in Commu-
      nity law.
                                                                              1.    declare the action admissible;
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                              2.    annul Commission Decision C(2003)99 reducing assis-
                                                                                tance granted from the European Social Fund under
                                                                                Commission Decisions C(94)3226 of 29 November 1994
                                                                                (operational programme for human resources develop-
                                                                                ment) in the framework of the project 940002IR1;
                                                                                C(94)1972 of 29 July 1994 (operational programme for
                                                                                tourism), in the framework of the project 940001IR1;
                                                                                C(94)2613 of 15 November 1994 (operational programme
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht                             for industrial development), in the framework of the
Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the                            project 940004IR1, approving operational programmes
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH                                  under objective 1 in Ireland, in whole or in part, or in
against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the                             respect of such periods or amounts as the Court should
                       Bundesversicherungsamt                                       determine;
                             (Case C-193/03)
                                                                              3.    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
                                                                                ings.
                             (2003/C 200/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart
(Social Court, Stuttgart) of 19 March 2003, received at the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Court Registry on 9 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversi-
cherungsamt on the following question:                                        1.    The Applicant submits that it is apparent from the
                                                                                contested decision that the Commission manifestly failed
                                                                                to properly consider the evidence furnished by Ireland
Whether Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1)                                which unambiguously demonstrated that in fact there was
precludes a practice, in implementation of Paragraph 13(3)                          no overpayment or overfinancing in relation to ESF
SGB V, of flat-rate reimbursement by an insurer of costs for                        eligible projects. Because of a mistaken characterisation
medical treatment in another Community country, on the                              of the exercise carried out by Ireland to demonstrate that
model of similar provisions on small amounts.                                       no such claim of overpayment or overfinancing occurred,
                                                                                and because of its mistaken belief that the evidence
                                                                                adduced by Ireland somehow would have an impact on
(1) OJ L 74 of 27.3.1972, p. 1.                                                     the financial tables, the Commission failed to properly
                                                                                consider the evidence and drew incorrect conclusions
                                                                                from certain elements.


title: Case C-72/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Marcello Costa

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Marcello Costa
   (Case C-72/10)
   2010/C 100/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   Marcello Costa

      Question referred

   The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; (b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence; (c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.


title: Case C-116/99: Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 188/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            3.7.1999
Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Kingdom of                       establishment of Sweden’s allocations of the Community’s
    Sweden against the Council of the European Union                   fishing opportunities in the Act of accession.
                        (Case C-115/99)                                (1) Of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish and groups of fish
                                                                           stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions
                                                                           under which they may be fished, OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 1.
                        (1999/C 188/22)                                (2) OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 8 April 1999 by the Kingdom of Sweden, represented
by Lotty Nordling, Head of the Legal Secretariat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy,
2 Rue H. Heine, 1720 Luxembourg.
                                                                       Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Italian Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-116/99)
1. pursuant to Article 173, annul Council Regulation (EC)
     No 48/99 (1) to the extent that the regulation concerns the                                  (1999/C 188/23)
     allocation of cod in Zone IIIbcd and haddock in Zone IIa
     and the North Sea, and:
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
2. order the Council to pay Sweden’s costs.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
Disregard of Article 121(1) of the Act concerning the con-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
ditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, in the            1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
version pursuant to Council Decision No 95/1/EC, Euratom,                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
ECSC (2):                                                                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with Parlia-
                                                                            ment and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on
                                                                            the approximation of the laws of the Member States
For 1999 a catch of 77 434 tonnes of cod is available to the                relating to lifts, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
Community for fishing in the Community waters in Zone                       its obligations under the EC Treaty;
IIIbcd. According to the conditions in Article 121(1) of
the Act of accession, Sweden should have been allocated                2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
26 382 tonnes of that catch. In this connection account has
been taken of the fact that transfers of 500 tonnes to Poland
and 79 tonnes to Latvia have been deducted from Sweden’s
quota and that 1 763 tonnes of Sweden’s quota for 1999 is to           Pleas in law and main arguments
be transferred to other Member States in accordance with the
agreement reached in conjunction with the signing of the
EEA Agreement. Instead, Regulation No 48/99 has allocated              Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Sweden 25 870 tonnes, which is 512 tonnes less than follows            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
from the Act of accession.                                             each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                       required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 January 1997
Sweden has been allocated 290 tonnes of haddock, which is              without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
68 tonnes less than provided for under the Act of accession.           necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Since the allocations to be made to Sweden from the Com-               referred to in the Commission’s application.
munity’s fishing opportunities have been specified in the Act
of accession, the Council has no scope, when establishing the
catch to be allocated to Sweden, to make a discretionary               (1) OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1.
assessment on the basis of the basic regulation and to take into
account the so-called ‘Hague preferences’. The balancing of
various interests which is to take place when establishing
catches has already taken place in connection with the


title: Case C-399/06 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2006 by Faraj Hassan against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-49/04: Faraj Hassan v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/30

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2006 by Faraj Hassan against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-49/04: Faraj Hassan v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-399/06 P)
   (2006/C 294/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Faraj Hassan (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, H. Miller, Solicitor)

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

               1)

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance

               2)

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 20 November 2003 (2) and/or Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 20 November 2003 in its entirety and/or in respect of the proscription of the Applicant; and

               3)

               Alternatively declare the aforementioned Regulations inapplicable in respect of its application to the applicant; and

               4)

               Take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate; and

               5)

               Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

               6)

               Order the Council to pay damages.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant maintains that the Council and Commission are obliged to respect the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and cannot abrogate that obligation, unless ‘at least equivalent protection’ is offered as a result of that abrogation.
   It is further maintained that the protections offered by the operation of the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) are not equivalent to that offered by the Convention.
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it:

               i)

               failed to directly assess whether the UNSC offered equivalent protection to that of the Convention, specifically in relation to Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention; and

               ii)

               scrutinized the operation of the UNSC indirectly by virtue of the principle of jus cogens rather than by virtue of and by reference to the protection offered by Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

         It is further submitted that the Court of First Instance erred when it found that the restriction on the usage of property was not a relevant one as to the substance of the right to property.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan. (OJ L 139, p. 9)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending for the 25th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. (OJ L 303, p. 20)


title: Case T-161/11: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2014  — High Tech v OHIM — Vitra Collections (Shape of a chair)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/37

         Order of the General Court of 24 March 2014 — High Tech v OHIM — Vitra Collections (Shape of a chair)
   (Case T-161/11) (1)

   2014/C 159/50
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case C-125/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

         Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union
   (Case C-125/15 P)
   (2015/C 155/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco and E. Beysen, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union, in so far as it rejects the second to fourth heads of claim made by the CJEU in its application to the General Court under Article 114 of that court’s Rules of Procedure;

               —

               grant those heads of claim and, accordingly:

                           —

                           giving a final ruling on the dispute, dismiss Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S. A.’s action for damages as inadmissible as it is brought against the CJEU (as representative of the European Union);

                           —

                           in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice should consider that the fact that the action has been brought against the CJEU and not the Commission (as representative of the EU) does not affect its admissibility but that, in ruling on the preliminary issue raised by the CJEU before it, the General Court should have ordered that the Commission be substituted for the CJEU as defendant, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the damages claim brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A., in accordance with the points of law decided by the Court of Justice;

               —

               order Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A. to pay the costs incurred by the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the CJEU relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging, first, infringement of the rules relating to the representation of the European Union before its judicature, and, second, breach of the General Court’s duty to state reasons.
   In the first ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the representation of the European Union before its judicature, the CJEU observes that, in the absence of any express provision specifically governing the representation of the EU before its judicature in actions brought on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, the rules relating to such representation must be inferred from the general principles governing the exercise of judicial functions, in particular the principle of the sound administration of justice and the principle that courts must be independent and impartial.
   In its second ground of appeal, the CJEU submits that, in the absence of any specific rebuttal of an argument presented before the General Court which was based on the scope of the judgments in Case C-40/12 P Gascogne Sack v Commission (1) and C-58/12 P Groupe Gascogne v Commission
       (2), the order under appeal is vitiated by breach of the duty to state adequate reasons.

      (1)  EU:C:2013:768.

      (2)  EU:C:2013:770.


title: Case T-141/07: Action brought on 4 May 2007 — General Technic-Otis v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/39

         Action brought on 4 May 2007 — General Technic-Otis v Commission
   (Case T-141/07)
   (2007/C 140/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: General Technic-Otis Sàrl (Howald, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Nobusch, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul on the basis of Article 230 EC the decision adopted by the Commission on 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators, in so far as it concerns GTO;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the fine imposed on it by that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant is seeking the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel on the market for the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and relating to the manipulation of calls for tenders, market-sharing, price-fixing, the award of projects and sales contracts, the installation, maintenance and modernisation of machinery and the exchange of information, in so far as it concerns the applicant. In the alternative, the applicant seeks annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.
   In support of its claims, the applicant raises seven pleas.
   In the first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in fact and in law in application of the rules on the calculation of fines in so far as it held that the incriminating practices constituted a ‘very serious’ infringement. The applicant alleges that the starting amount of the fine should consequently be reduced owing to the limited geographical scope of the market in question and the limited impact of the offending practices on the market in question.
   In its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law and in fact in so far as it did not take into account the applicant's actual economic capacity to cause damage. It also maintains that the Commission should have taken into account, when fixing the amount of the fine, the applicant's status as a small or medium-sized undertaking, managed entirely independently and which, consequently, is incapable of causing significant damage on the market.
   In the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law and in fact in so far as it did not limit the amount of the fine to 10 % of its turnover and that it was wrong to take into account the turnover of the parent companies for the purpose of calculating the maximum fine to impose on the applicant.
   The fourth plea alleges infringement by the Commission of the principle of equal treatment in so far as it did not apply the principles on liability consistently to all the members of the cartel in question. The applicant maintains that the Commission attributed the offending practices to its parent companies while it did not do so in respect of another company against which a finding of infringement was made in the same decision, although that company was in a comparable situation to the applicant's as regards the control exercised by the parent companies.
   By its fifth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in fact in so far as it did not grant it a reduction of 50 % of the fine under the Leniency Notice (1). The applicant maintains that its cooperation with the Commission was close, consistent and particularly wide in its scope and that it warrants the maximum reduction in the fine provided for by the Leniency Notice, that is, 50 %.
   The sixth plea put forward by the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission did not grant it a supplementary reduction of 10 % of the fine in return for not contesting the facts. The applicant claims that the notification of the statement of objections and the Commission's practice in taking decisions gave rise to the justified expectation on its part that it would obtain on that basis a reduction of 10 %, and not merely 1 % as granted in the contested decision.
   The seventh plea alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality of penalties, in so far as the fine imposed on the applicant is not justified in the light of the infringement in question, and above all having regard to what is alleged to be its limited impact on the market and the fact it was committed by a company of limited size.

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


title: Case C-262/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale and Others v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ — Wind-generated electricity — Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price — Offsetting in full — Charges payable by final consumers of electricity)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale and Others v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
   (Case C-262/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ - Wind-generated electricity - Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price - Offsetting in full - Charges payable by final consumers of electricity)
   2014/C 52/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier

      Defendants: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

      Intervener: Syndicat des énergies renouvelables

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (France) — Interpretation of Article 87 EC, now Article 107 TFEU — Concept of intervention by the State or through State resources — Obligation to purchase wind-generated electricity at a price higher than the market price — Additional costs offset in full — Change in the method of financing that offsetting — Charges payable by final consumers of electricity.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a mechanism for offsetting in full the additional costs imposed on undertakings because of an obligation to purchase wind-generated electricity at a price higher than the market price that is financed by all final consumers of electricity in the national territory, such as that resulting from Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, as amended by Law No 2006-1537 of 7 December 2006 on the energy sector, constitutes an intervention through State resources.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012


title: Case T-13/13: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — MasterCard International v OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/83

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — MasterCard International v OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)
   (Case T-13/13) (1)

   2013/C 225/191
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-88/92: Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v. Commission of the European Communities (Selective distribution system - Luxury cosmetic products)

text:
No C 40/ 18         |_EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
Amsterdam Bar, during the written procedure, by Yves                 Gilbert Parléani , of the Paris Bar, with an address for
van Gerven, of the Brussels Bar, and, during the oral                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Hoss,
procedure, by Bernt Hugenholtz, of the Amsterdam Bar,                15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of the European
and Frederic Louis and Peter Wytinck, both of the                    Communities (Agents: initially Bernd Langeheine, then
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           Berend Jan Drijber and Hervé Lehman ), supported by
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Goethe, against                   Parfums Givenchy SA, established in Levallois-Perret,
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Berend                France, represented by Francois Bizet, of the Paris Bar,
Jan Drijber ), supported by Parfums Givenchy SA,                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
established in Levallois-Perret, France, represented by              Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, Federation des
Francois Bizet, of the Paris Bar, and Aloyse May, of the             Industries de la Parfumerie, established in Paris,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       represented by Robert Collin, of the Paris Bar, with an
Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 31 Grand-Rue,              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Comité de Liaison des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie             Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Comité de Liai
de la Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques, established in                  son des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
Brussels, represented by Stephen Kon, Solicitor, and                 rie et des Cosmétiques, established in Brussels, represented
Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            by Stephen Kon , Solicitor, and Melanie Thill-Tayara, of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wylander and                the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at
Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich, and Federation Euro                 the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston
péenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants, established in Paris,             Diderich, and Federation Européenne des Parfumeurs Dé
represented by Rolland Verniau, of the Lyon Bar, with an             taillants, established in Paris, represented by Rolland
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Verniau , of the Lyon Bar, with an address for service in
Nico Schaeffer, 12 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve —                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12
application for annulment of Commission Decision 92/                 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve — application for annulment of
428/EEC of 24 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under               Commission Decision 92/428/EEC of 24 July 1992
Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case No IV/33.542 —                   relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC
Parfums Givenchy system of selective distribution ) ( OJ No          Treaty ( Case No IV/33.542 — Parfums Givenchy system
L 236 , 19 . 8 . 1992, p. 11 ) — the Court of First Instance         of selective distribution ) ( OJ No L 236 , 19 . 8 . 1992, p. 11 )
( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of                — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy,           Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and
A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; Registrar: J.              B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on                  Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
 12 December 1996 , in which it:                                     the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
 I . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the                      1 . annuls Commission Decision 92/428/EEC of 24 July
     Commission and of the intervener Parfums Givenchy                     I 992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the
     SA, and to bear its own costs;                                        EEC Treaty (Case No IV/33.542 — Parfums Givenchy
                                                                           system of selective distribution) in so far as it decides
 3 , orders each of the other interveners, the Comité de                   that a provision allowing Givenchy to treat retailers '
     Liaison des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la                  applications less favourably merely because perfumery
     Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Eu                  represents a minority of their activities is not covered
     ropéenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own                  by Article 85 (1 ) of the Treaty;
     costs .
 O OJ No C 331 , 16 . 12 . 1992 .                                     2 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                      3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the
                                                                           Commission and of the intervener Parfums Givenchy
                                                                           SA , and to bear its own costs;
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 12 December 1996
 in Case T-88/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v.              4 , orders each of the other interveners, the Fédération
        Commission of the European Communities (')                         des Industries de la Parfumerie, the Comité de Liaison
 (Selective   distribution     system —    Luxury      cosmetic            des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
                              products)                                     rie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Européenne
                                                                            des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own costs.
                           ( 97/C 40/45 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 307, 25 . 11 . 1992 .
 In Case T-88/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc,
 established in Paris, represented by Mario Amadio and


title: Case C-607/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — ITV Broadcasting Limited and Others v TVCatchup Limited (Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Broadcasting by a third party over the internet of signals of commercial television broadcasters — ‘Live streaming’ — Communication to the public)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — ITV Broadcasting Limited and Others v TVCatchup Limited
   (Case C-607/11) (1)

   (Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Broadcasting by a third party over the internet of signals of commercial television broadcasters - ‘Live streaming’ - Communication to the public)
   2013/C 123/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ITV Broadcasting Ltd, ITV 2 Ltd, ITV Digital Channels Ltd, Channel 4 Television Corporation, 4 Ventures Ltd, Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd, ITV Studios Ltd

      Defendant: TVCatchup Ltd

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Authorisation, by right holders, of the television broadcasting of their works on the free terrestrial network covering either the whole territory of a Member State or a limited geographical area within that Member State — Continuous transmission service, operated by a third party broadcaster, available to individual subscribers who have paid the television licence fee, meaning that those subscribers can receive the programmes live via video streams on the internet

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers a retransmission of the works included in a terrestrial television broadcast

                           —

                           where the retransmission is made by an organisation other than the original broadcaster,

                           —

                           by means of an internet stream made available to the subscribers of that other organisation who may receive that retransmission by logging on to its server,

                           —

                           even though those subscribers are within the area of reception of that terrestrial television broadcast and may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver.

               2.

               The answer to Question 1 is not influenced by the fact that a retransmission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is funded by advertising and is therefore of a profit-making nature.

               3.

               The answer to Question 1 is not influenced by the fact that a retransmission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is made by an organisation which is acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-221/00: Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2008 — Casinò municipale di Venezia v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2008 — Casinò municipale di Venezia v Commission
   (Case T-221/00) (1)

   (2008/C 327/72)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.


title: Case C-623/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2015 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-104/13: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/26

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2015 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-104/13: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-623/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, A. Kadri, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-104/13 insofar as it upheld the finding of the European Commission that Toshiba is jointly and severally liable for the conduct of MTPD;

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Commission in Case COMP/39.437 TV and Computer Monitor Tubes insofar as it found that Toshiba infringed Article 101 TFEU and held Toshiba jointly and severally liable for the conduct of MTPD;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law:
   The General Court misapplied the concept of undertaking by incorrectly classifying certain elements as indicating that Toshiba was in a position to, or did actually, exercise decisive influence over MTPD and by concluding that the sum of those elements was sufficient to support the conclusion that Toshiba did exercise such influence over MTPD.