title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2004 in Case C-49/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht): Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH (Trade marks — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 89/104/EEC — Signs capable of constituting a trade mark — Combinations of colours — Colours blue and yellow for certain products used in the building trade)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 24 June 2004
   in Case C-49/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht): Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH (1)

   (Trade marks - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 89/104/EEC - Signs capable of constituting a trade mark - Combinations of colours - Colours blue and yellow for certain products used in the building trade)
   (2004/C 201/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-49/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH — on the interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Colours or combinations of colours which are the subject of an application for registration as a trade mark, claimed in the abstract, without contours, and in shades which are named in words by reference to a colour sample and specified according to an internationally recognised colour classification system may constitute a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks where:

               —

               it has been established that, in the context in which they are used, those colours or combinations of colours in fact represent a sign, and

               —

               the application for registration includes a systematic arrangement associating the colours concerned in a predetermined and uniform way.

         Even if a combination of colours satisfies the requirements for constituting a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the Directive, it is still necessary for the competent authority for registering trade marks to decide whether the combination claimed fulfils the other requirements laid down, particularly in Article 3 of the Directive, for registration as a trade mark in relation to the goods or services of the undertaking which has applied for its registration. Such an examination must take account of all the relevant circumstances of the case, including any use which has been made of the sign in respect of which trade mark registration is sought. That examination must also take account of the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for other traders who market goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-424/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/72)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 17 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-424/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 300 of 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-231/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus) — Oy AA (Freedom of establishment — Corporate tax legislation — Ability of a company to deduct sums paid by way of intra-group transfer — Obligation on the transferee company also to have its establishment in the Member State concerned)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus) — Oy AA
   (Case C-231/05) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Corporate tax legislation - Ability of a company to deduct sums paid by way of intra-group transfer - Obligation on the transferee company also to have its establishment in the Member State concerned)
   (2007/C 235/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeu
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oy AA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 43, 56 and 58 EC — Income tax legislation — Deductibility by a company of sums paid as an intra-group transfer conditional on the transferee company also having its establishment in the Member State concerned
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 43 EC does not preclude a system instituted by legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a subsidiary resident in that Member State may not deduct an intra-group financial transfer which it makes in favour of its parent company from its taxable income unless that parent company has its establishment in that same Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-78/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2007 — Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia v Domenico Valvo

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2007 — Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia v Domenico Valvo
   (Case C-78/07)
   (2007/C 117/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia

      Respondent: Domenico Valvo
   Question referred
   May a farmer be refused the compensatory allowance provided for by Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (as amended by Regulation No 3669/93) and by Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (1) on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures when he also receives a pension, in particular, a years-of-service pension?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 142, p. 1.


title: Case T-292/03: Action brought on 20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 264/33
The applicant finally submits that the Commission should                     —     from the failure to examine an unknown number of
have initiated a formal investigation procedure under                              candidates in the language which they had declared to be
Article 88(2) EC given the complexity of the arguments in fact                     their ‘principal’ language;
and law raised by the applicant and the economic analysis
required.                                                                    —     from the failure to examine the applicant in the third
                                                                                language declared by him, and also from the (in his
                                                                                submission) different treatment of the candidates as
(1) Case C-53/00 Ferring [2001] ECR I-9067 and Case C-280/00                       regards examination of the third language and any further
    Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, not                      languages known by them;
    yet published in the ECR.
(2) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to           —     from the appointment of further members of the selection
    direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives             board in addition to those initially appointed, after
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)                 notification of the names of the candidates admitted to
    (OJ L 228, p. 1).                                                              the oral examination, from the fact that the selection
                                                                                board included two members appointed by the Staff
                                                                                Committee instead of one, and from the alteration in the
                                                                                composition of the board when the oral examinations
                                                                                were conducted.
Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Georgios Pantoulis
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-290/03)                                    Action brought on 20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin
                                                                             GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (2003/C 264/56)
                                                                                (Case T-292/03)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/57)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                       (Language of the case: German)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 August 2003 by Georgios
Pantoulis, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Kharis-
sios Tagaras, lawyer.                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin GmbH, Berlin, represented
                                                                             by R. Lange and E. Schalast, lawyers.
—     annul the decision of the selection board for Competition
      COM/A/6/01 — section 02 not to include him on the list
      of successful candidates in that competition and the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      defendant’s reply of 10 June 2003 by which it rejected his
      complaint under no R/55/2003, lodged on 10 February                    —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
      2003, requesting revocation of the selection board;                          Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2003 (Case No R 646/
—     order the defendant to pay his costs.                                        2001-2);
                                                                             —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant pleads breaches of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
competition notice, of the principles and rules governing the
functioning of selection boards, of the principle of equal
treatment and of the Staff Regulations (Annex III). In his                   Community trade mark           The word mark ‘HOMETECH’ —
submission those breaches have arisen:                                       sought:                        application No 1985118
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
Goods or services:             Goods and services in Classes 16           Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.
                               and 41                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of            the mark in respect of ‘printed                                    (Case T-296/03)
Appeal:                        matter’ in Class 16 and ‘arranging
                               and organising of trade fairs, exhi-
                                                                                (2003/C 264/59)
                               bitions, seminars and congresses’
                               in Class 41
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                  —    The mark is distinctive
                                    within the meaning of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                    (EC) No 40/94;                        European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                               —    The mark is not a descriptive
                                    indication within the mean-
                                    ing of Article 7(1)(c) of Regu-       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                          —     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-295/03)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                        (2003/C 264/58)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.,
represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto Achille
                                                                          s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C. against the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-297/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                         European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto
                                                                          Achille s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C., represented by
                                                                          M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.


title: Case T-409/09: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the General Court — Limitation period — Time-limits on account of distance — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/16

         Order of the General Court of 22 June 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-409/09) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the General Court - Limitation period - Time-limits on account of distance - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
   2011/C 238/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission of 15 September 2004 rejecting its bid and awarding the contract to another tenderer in the course of the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-418/12 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v European Commission (Appeal — Public service contracts — Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds — Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the appellant — Refusal of the Commission to open an infringement or financial adjustment procedure against Romania)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/51

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v European Commission
   (Case C-418/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service contracts - Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds - Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the appellant - Refusal of the Commission to open an infringement or financial adjustment procedure against Romania)
   2013/C 225/90
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia (represented by: C. Malinconico and A. Gigliola, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and P. van Nuffel, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11 TME v European Commission, by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, first, an application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 April 2011 concerning the complaint lodged by TME in connection with the failure on the part of Romania to fulfil its obligations under European Union law in the context of the project ‘Bucharest Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation: Stage I ISPA 2004/RO/16/P/PE/003-03’, linked to the restructuring of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, and, second, a claim for damages — Misinterpretation of the subject of the action — Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for External Actions — Commission under an obligation to issue a reasoned opinion in the event of irregularities or breaches arising in the course of the tendering procedure

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.


title: Case C-520/09 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2009 by Arkema France SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/27

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2009 by Arkema France SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission
   (Case C-520/09 P)
   2010/C 37/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Arkema France SA (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits four pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, the appellant complains that the Court infringed the rules on the imputability of the anti-competitive practices of a subsidiary to its parent company. It submits in this respect that there is a contradiction in the very wording of the judgment under appeal since the Court holds, in that judgment, that the presumption that the parent company has decisive influence over its subsidiary is a simple presumption that may be rebutted by the parent company and/or the subsidiary adduce evidence showing that the subsidiary acts independently, while holding, at the same time, that the very role of a parent company is to ensure that the subsidiaries within a group of companies are run as one, in particular through budgetary control. That gives rise, de jure, to a non-rebuttable presumption that the parent company has decisive influence over its subsidiaries and, in the light of the Court’s assertion to that effect, it is impossible for a subsidiary to prove that its conduct on the market is independent.
   By its second plea, Arkema submits that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination resulting from the non-rebuttable nature of the presumption that the parent company has decisive influence over its subsidiaries since, because of that presumption, the members of a cartel are treated differently depending on whether they belong to a group of companies or not.
   By its third plea, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes the principles of equal treatment and the right to a fair hearing in that, in response to the appellant’s plea alleging that there has been an infringement of essential procedural requirements because of the failure to provide a statement of reasons, the Court examined only the arguments submitted by Elf Aquitaine, the parent company of Arkema, and not those submitted by the latter itself. Whilst it is true that the Court is not required to set out, in an exhaustive manner, all the arguments submitted by the parties to the dispute, the fact remains that the grounds of the judgment under appeal must, at least, put the appellant in a position to know precisely the reasoning that the Court has followed with respect to it.
   By its fourth and last plea, Arkema claims, finally, that there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that its turnover was taken into account twice by the Commission when it determined the basis on which the fine was assessed, and that the Court committed an error when it confirmed that the Commission had no other choice if it wanted to apply the method for setting fines set out in the guidelines. In doing so, the Court bestowed on the Commission’s guidelines an absolute binding force that they do not have. According to the appellant, such guidelines are more like rules of conduct giving an indication of the practice to be followed and not legal rules which the administration must follow under any circumstances.


title: Case T-134/12: Action brought on 27 March 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/9

         Action brought on 27 March 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission
   (Case T-134/12)
   2012/C 157/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission Ref. Ares (2012) 39854 of 19January 2012 in so far as it provides for the reimbursement of the debit notes corresponding to audit 09-INFS-001/041;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct at issue in the amount of EUR 732 788.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in these proceedings has entered into a number of contracts with the Commission in relation to R&D, all regulated on the basis of Commission Decision C(2003) 3834 of 23 October 2003, which provides for a core contract of the type FP 5 or FP 6 and for the general conditions FP 5 and FP 6.
   In relation to those contracts, and on the basis of the results of an investigation carried out by OLAF and an audit performed by the Commission, the Commission adopted a decision revoking subsidies.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence, as a result of the means of execution of the said audit.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, by denying the applicant the applicable legal framework throughout the procedure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure on the part of the Commission to comply with its duty to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, as a result of the tone adopted by DG INFSO in its audit report.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to have regard for the right to good administration, as a result of failure on the part of the auditors to comply with their duty of impartiality and equality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, particularly with regard to the lack of accreditation of the external auditors and the origin of the audit process itself.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to privacy.


title: Case C-230/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Konstantin Toltschin v Kaiser GmbH

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Konstantin Toltschin v Kaiser GmbH
   (Case C-230/11)
   2011/C 269/39
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Passau

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konstantin Toltschin

      Defendant: Kaiser GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation or practice according to which, if there is a reduction in the days to be worked each week as a result of a lawful order specifying short-time working, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to reflect the ratio between the number of working days each week during the period of short-time working and the number of working days each week for a full-time worker and, as a result, during the period of short-time working, the short-time worker accrues a correspondingly reduced entitlement to annual leave?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation and practice according to which, if the number of days to be worked each week is reduced to zero as a result of a lawful order specifying ‘zero hours short-time working’, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to nothing and, as a result, during the period of ‘zero hours short-time working’, the short-time worker does not accrue any entitlement to annual leave?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Case C-487/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Vueling Airlines SA v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air Transport — Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Pricing freedom — Checking in baggage — Price supplement — Concept of ‘air fares’  — Consumer protection — Imposition of a fine on an air carrier for an unfair contract term — National law requiring the carriage of passenger and checked-in baggage to be included in the base price of a plane ticket — Whether compatible with EU law)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Vueling Airlines SA v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia
   (Case C-487/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Pricing freedom - Checking in baggage - Price supplement - Concept of ‘air fares’ - Consumer protection - Imposition of a fine on an air carrier for an unfair contract term - National law requiring the carriage of passenger and checked-in baggage to be included in the base price of a plane ticket - Whether compatible with EU law))
   2014/C 421/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vueling Airlines SA

      Defendant: Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires air carriers to carry, in all circumstances, not only the passenger, but also baggage checked in by him, provided that the baggage complies with certain requirements as regards, in particular, its weight, for the price of the plane ticket and without it being possible to charge any price supplement to carry such baggage.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-421/12: Action brought on 13 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/11

         Action brought on 13 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-421/12)
   2012/C 355/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that:

                           —

                           by excluding from the scope of the Law of 5 June 2007 transposing Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (1) members of a profession and dentists and physiotherapists, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, combined with Article 2(b) and (d) of that directive;

                           —

                           by maintaining in force Articles 20, 21 and 29 of the Law of 6 April 2010 on market practices and consumer protection, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices;

                           —

                           by maintaining in force the third subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise and organisation of travelling trading and fairground activities as inserted by Article 7 of the Law of 4 July 2005 modifying the Law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of travelling trading activities and the organisation of public markets, and point 4 of Article 5(1) of the Royal Decree of 24 September 2006 concerning the exercise and organisation of travelling trading activities, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of Directive 2005/29/EC expired on 12 June 2007.

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case C-549/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Arnsberg — Germany) — Bundesdruckerei GmbH v Stadt Dortmund (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Directive 96/71/EC — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — National legislation requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services relating to the public contract — Subcontractor established in another Member State)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/17

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Arnsberg — Germany) — Bundesdruckerei GmbH v Stadt Dortmund
   (Case C-549/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Directive 96/71/EC - Procedures for the award of public service contracts - National legislation requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services relating to the public contract - Subcontractor established in another Member State))
   2014/C 421/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Vergabekammer Arnsberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesdruckerei GmbH

      Defendant: Stadt Dortmund

      Operative part of the judgment

   In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a tenderer intends to carry out a public contract by having recourse exclusively to workers employed by a subcontractor established in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs, Article 56 TFEU precludes the application of legislation of the Member State to which that contracting authority belongs which requires that subcontractor to pay those workers a minimum wage fixed by that legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-793/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Boxes)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/41

         Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Boxes)
   (Case T-793/16)
   (2017/C 022/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Boxes’ — Community design No 002 343 244-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 1143/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare invalid RCD No. 002343244-0002 ‘Bobo Cornet’; and

               —

               order EUIPO and Elka Zaharieva to bear the costs of Solen in relation to the proceedings before the General Court and in relation to the administrative phase of the proceedings, in particular the invalidity and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 62 and 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-6/13: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2015  — NICO v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran — Freezing of funds — Time-limit in which to bring proceedings — Starting point — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/25

         Order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — NICO v Council
   (Case T-6/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - Freezing of funds - Time-limit in which to bring proceedings - Starting point - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 089/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as the applicant’s name is included in the list of persons and entities to whom those restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-87/05: Action brought on 25 February 2005 by EDP-Energias de Portugal S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/44

         Action brought on 25 February 2005 by EDP-Energias de Portugal S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-87/05)
   (2005/C 82/78)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 February 2005 by EDP-Energias de Portugal, established in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by C. Botelho Moniz, R. García-Gallardo, A. Weitbrecht and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's Decision of 9 December 2004 in case number COMP/M.3440 EDP/GNI/GDP declaring the concentration by which Energias de Portugal SA and ENI Portugal Investment S.p.A. acquire joint control over Gás de Portugal SGPS S.A. incompatible with the common market;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the concentration by which the applicant together with ENI Portugal Investment S.p.A. acquired joint control over Gás de Portugal SGPS S.A., a company whose activities in the gas sector cover all levels of the distribution and supply chain in Portugal.
   In support of its application the applicant submits first of all that in conducting the procedure leading up to the contested decision the Commission infringed the principle of good administration and disregarded essential procedural requirements by not granting the applicant sufficient access to the outcome of the market test of the commitments proposed by the parties to the concentration and by failing to make an impartial and diligent assessment of the proposed commitments when evaluating the market test.
   The applicant further contends that the Commission also violated its duty under Article 253 EC to provide adequate reasons for its decision, since it relied on information considered confidential and not disclosed to the applicant.
   The applicant also invokes the fact that Portugal's gas market qualifies as ‘emergent’ under Article 28(2) of Directive 2003/55 (1) and benefits from a derogation from that directive until April 2007. The applicant considers that by assessing the effects of the concentration on a gas market not open to competition, the Commission infringed the right of the Portuguese government to restructure the gas sector during the derogation period. Further, it alleges that the Commission misapplied the substantive test in Article 2 of Regulation 4064/89 (2) by purporting to evaluate the effects of the proposed concentration at the end of the derogation period, several years later.
   A further violation of that article as well as of the duty to state reasons consists, according to the applicant, in the Commission's failure to assess whether the strengthening of the applicant and of Gás de Portugal's dominant position in the electricity and gas markets would have significantly impeded competition.
   Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission violated Article 8(2) and 8(3) of Regulation 4064/89 by concluding that, despite the commitments proposed by the parties, the proposed transaction should be declared incompatible with the common market.

      (1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ L 176 p. 57).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 257/90 p. 13).


title: Case T-109/04: Order of the General Court of 16 April 2010 — DB Schenker Rail Deutschland v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/56

      Order of the General Court of 16 April 2010 — DB Schenker Rail Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-109/04) (1)

      (2010/C 161/89)

         Language of the case: German

      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004.


title: Case T-206/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamopoulos and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/53
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                 sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-                  eration for the destination of Athens;
      sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier points                     or, in the alternative,
      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      type seat’ ticket;                                                   —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                                to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                       (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      decisions annulment of which is sought;                                    during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                       passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier points
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             type seat’ ticket;
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        decisions annulment of which is sought;
      costs.
                                                                           —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                                                                following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                                                                which is sought, together with legal interest;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to pay those
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
                                                                                costs.
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those            Pleas in law and main arguments
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
 1
( ) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002, p. 17.                                           sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
(2) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 40.                                            travel expenses to Greece.
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                           applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamo-                         (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
poulos and Others against the Commission of the
                      European Communities
                          (Case T-206/03)
                         (2003/C 184/111)
                                                                           Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios Rammos
                    (Language of the case: French)                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-207/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 184/112)
European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamo-
poulos, residing in Brussels, and 118 other officials, represented
by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for                                    (Language of the case: French)
service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified              Rammos, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-            in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-560/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — European Commission v Meierhofer (Appeals — Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Decision that a candidate had failed the oral test — Commission’s refusal to comply with a measure of organisation of procedure)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — European Commission v Meierhofer
   (Case T-560/08 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Decision that a candidate had failed the oral test - Commission’s refusal to comply with a measure of organisation of procedure)
   2010/C 179/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. -G. Schiessl, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPEAL against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I A 1-0000 and II A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meirehofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC A-I-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-246/07: Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Coesagro v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/47

         Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Coesagro v Council and Commission
   (Case T-246/07)
   (2007/C 211/87)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: S. Coop. And. Ecijana de Servicios Agropecuarios (Coesagro), (Seville, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 228 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total one million and thirty five thousand four hundred and sixty six euros (EUR 1 035 466);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put forward in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case T-392/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AEPI v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AEPI v Commission
   (Case T-392/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/44
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by P. Xanthopoulos and T. Asprogerakas Grivas, then T. Asprogerakas Grivas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted initially by M. Moustakali, then S. Dempegiotis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE;

               2.

               Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that it refers to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as it concerns AEPI;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of AEPI’s costs;

               5.

               Orders AEPI to bear one half of its own costs;

               6.

               Orders the Commission and AEPI to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-301/00: Action brought on 20 September 2000 by Groupe Fremaux and Palais Royal Inc. against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/32               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.12.2000
D.      Infringement of Articles 4(1) and 6(1)                         Action brought on 20 September 2000 by Groupe Fre-
        of Regulation No 17, together with                             maux and Palais Royal Inc. against the Council of the
        Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty                                 European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
        According to Article 4(1) of Regulation No 17, the
        exemption decisions provided for in Article 6(1) of                                    (Case T-301/00)
        that regulation may only be adopted in respect of
        agreements which have been notified. However, accord-
        ing to the applicant, the contested decision made the                                  (2000/C 355/70)
        exemption retrospective to a time prior to the last
        amendments made to the notified agreements, contrary
        to Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Regulation No 17, together                           (Language of the case: French)
        with Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and the
        It adds that the exemption was granted for an excess-
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
        ively long period and is unreasonable.
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       on 20 September 2000 by Groupe Fremaux, established in
                                                                       Paris, and Palais Royal Inc., established in Charlottesville
E.      Infringement of Article 233 of the EC                          (United States of America), represented by Claude Lazarus and
        Treat: failure to comply with the judg-                        Florent Prunet, of the Paris Bar.
        ment of the Court of First Instance of
        11 July 1996
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
        The applicant claims that the essential purpose of the         —     order the Council of the European Union and the
        Commission, following the judgment of the Court of
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities to pay Grou-
        First Instance, was to avoid the legal consequences of               pe Fremaux the sum of EUR 241 705 in respect of losses
        that judgment.                                                       sustained, or to make good those losses, on the basis of
                                                                             Article 288 of the EC Treaty;
F.      Misuse of powers                                               —     order the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities to pay Palais
        Faced with the requirements of Article 233 of the                    Royal Inc. the sum of EUR 446 071 in respect of losses
        Treaty, so far as concerns compliance with the judg-                 sustained, or to make good those losses, on the basis of
        ment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996, the             Article 288 of the EC Treaty, and
        Commission used its powers under Regulation No 17
        not in order to ensure compliance with the judgment            —     order the Council of the European Union and the
        with regard to the assessment as to whether the                      Commission of the European Communities to pay the
        restriction of competition inherent in the EBU member-               costs.
        ship rules was indispensable but rather to circumvent
        and avoid the consequences of the judgment, by
        adopting a new exemption decision in which the matter
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
        which led to the annulment of Decision 93/403/EEC is
        put to one side and deliberately ignored.
                                                                       The applicant Groupe Fremaux specialises in producing cotton
                                                                       bedlinen of which a significant proportion is exported to the
G.      Breach of the principle of the separ-                          American market through the intermediary of its distribution
        ation of powers                                                subsidiary Palais Royal. In the context of the commercial
                                                                       dispute involving bananas between the European Union and
                                                                       the African, Caribbean and Pacific States on the one hand and
        The Commission’s conduct in the present case —                 the United States and other banana producers on the other,
        inasmuch as it took it upon itself, in the contested           the American authorities decided that, from 3 March 1999
        decision, to proceed to a review of the judgment of the        onwards, European undertakings exporting certain products
        Court of First Instance — constitutes a serious breach         to American territory, including those manufactured and
        of the principle of the separation of powers in relations      distributed by the applicants, would be required to raise a bank
        between the executive branch and the judicial branch           guarantee in the sum of 100 % of the value of the products
        of the Community.                                              exported.
(1) OJ 1994 L 179, p. 23.                                              The object of the present action is to obtain compensation for
                                                                       the losses which the applicants estimate that they have incurred
                                                                       as a result of the commercial sanctions imposed by the United
                                                                       States authorities.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/33
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those             The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of his
relied on in Case T-297/00 (1).                                           application:
                                                                          —     Infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC;
(1) See p. 30 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          —     Infringement of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
                                                                                1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the
                                                                                mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and
                                                                                other evidence of formal qualifications (1);
                                                                          —     Breach of the rules of assessment of the Community
                                                                                interest.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Anthony
Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
                                munities
                           (Case T-302/00)
                           (2000/C 355/71)
                                                                          Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Marı́a Jesús
                                                                          Sáez Acevedo against Commission of the European Com-
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                   munities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (Case T-304/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Anthony
                                                                                (2000/C 355/72)
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
of Merriman White, London.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 July 2000                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regulation                 European Communities on 22 September 2000 by Marı́a Jesús
      No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement of                   Sáez Acevedo, residing in Brussels represented by Juan Ramón
      Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Medical Council;               Iturriagagoitia.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 13 December 1999 by the
                                                                                Commission’s Pensions Unit, in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 earlier requests of 23 August 1999, 22 September 1999
                                                                                and 3 December 1999;
In 1993 the applicant, a Community medical specialist in
                                                                          —     review of the applicant’s file, in view of the transfer of her
rheumatology, submitted to the Commission under Article
                                                                                pension rights, by the Transfer of Pension Rights Section
3 (2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a finding
                                                                                of the Commission Pensions Unit following receipt of
that the General Medical Council, a statutory body which
                                                                                the interest arising from enforcement of a judgment,
regulates the medical profession in the territory of the United
                                                                                transferred by the Spanish social security;
Kingdom, had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81 and 82 EC). By letter of 7 July 2000 the
Commission informed the applicant that his complaint had                  —     order any calculation necessary in respect of the above-
been rejected (the contested decision).                                         mentioned transfer;


title: Case C-153/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 1 April 2010 — Sony Logistics Europe B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 1 April 2010 — Sony Logistics Europe B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-153/10)
   2010/C 179/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sony Logistics Europe B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Community law, and in particular Article 12(2) and (5) and Article 217(1) of the CCC (1), and Article 11 of the CCIR (2) in conjunction with Article 243 of the CCC, be interpreted to mean that a person involved in proceedings concerning customs duties which have been imposed may challenge their imposition by producing binding tariff information issued in another Member State for the same goods, which information was still the subject of a legal dispute at that time, but was eventually revised?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can the person declaring the goods to customs in his own name and for his own account successfully rely in a case such as this, when making customs declarations for release for free circulation, on binding tariff information whose holder is not that person, but an associated firm on whose instructions that person made the customs declarations?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, does Community law preclude a person in a case such as this from successfully relying on a national policy decision in which the national authorities raise the expectation that, in respect of the tariff classification of the goods declared, it can rely on tariff information issued to a third party for the same goods?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1)


title: Case C-74/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nógrád Megyei Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on 30 January 2008 — PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nógrád Megyei Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on 30 January 2008 — PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály
   (Case C-74/08)
   (2008/C 116/18)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Nógrád Megyei Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft.

      Defendant: Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály
   Questions referred

               1.

               On 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union, were the rules laid down in Article 38(1)(a) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 1992. évi LXXIV. Törvény (Law LXXIV of 1992 concerning turnover tax; ‘the Áfa.tv’) compatible with Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (‘the Sixth Directive’)?

               2.

               If the answer is in the negative, may the applicant rely directly on Article 17 of the Sixth Directive when exercising the right to deduct, rather than on Article 38(1)(a) of the Áfa.tv?

      (1)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Case C-436/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België) — Criminal proceedings against Léopold Henri van Esbroeck (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Articles 54 and 71 — Ne bis in idem principle — Application ratione temporis — Concept of  the same acts  — Import and export of narcotic drugs subject to legal proceedings in different Contracting States)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België) — Criminal proceedings against Léopold Henri van Esbroeck
   (Case C-436/04) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 54 and 71 - Ne bis in idem principle - Application ratione temporis - Concept of ‘the same acts’ - Import and export of narcotic drugs subject to legal proceedings in different Contracting States)
   (2006/C 131/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Party in the main proceedings
   Léopold Henri van Esbroeck
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Arts. 54 and 71 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne bis in idem principle — Person prosecuted in a Member State for illegally exporting drugs after having been prosecuted and convicted in Norway for illegal importing drugs before the Schengen Agreement was applicable to that State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, must be applied to criminal proceedings brought in a Contracting State for acts for which a person has already been convicted in another Contracting State even though the Convention was not yet in force in the latter State at the time at which that person was convicted, in so far as the Convention was in force in the Contracting States in question at the time of the assessment, by the court before which the second proceedings were brought, of the conditions of applicability of the ne bis in idem principle.

               2.

               Article 54 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected;

                           —

                           punishable acts consisting of exporting and importing the same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in different Contracting States to the Convention are, in principle, to be regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54, the definitive assessment in that respect being the task of the competent national courts.

      (1)  OJ C 300 of 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-298/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France), lodged on 18 June 2012 — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la pêche

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France), lodged on 18 June 2012 — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la pêche
   (Case C-298/12)
   2012/C 273/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Confédération paysanne

      Defendant: Ministre de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la pêche

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, (1) regard being had to their wording, but also to their purpose, authorise Member States to base the right to revalorisation of the reference amount for farmers whose production has been seriously affected by reason of agri-environmental commitments to which they have been subject, for all or part of the reference period, on a comparison between the amounts of the direct payments received during the years affected by such commitments and those received during years which were not affected by such commitments?

               2.

               Do paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 authorise Member States to base the right to revalorisation of the reference amount for farmers whose production has been seriously affected by reason of agri-environmental commitments to which they have been subject, during the entire reference period, on a comparison between the amount of direct payments received during the last year not affected by an agri-environmental commitment, including cases in which that year is eight years prior to the reference period, and the annual average amount of direct payments received during the reference period?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).


title: Case T-874/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/22

         Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-874/16)
   (2017/C 046/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 4 March 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, by which the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the promotion system in force at the Court of Auditors of the European Union, implemented by decision 53-2014 on promotions, in that it affects the appointing authority’s ability to identify in a methodical way the disparities in the method of appraising officials as applied by the various reporting officers of the institution according to their own subjective viewpoint.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 4 May 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the appointing authority did not carry out a comparative examination of the applicant’s merits on a basis of equality and objectivity, using comparable sources of information.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons in the response dismissing the complaint shows that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case T-194/03: Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 184/49
The application for increase in capacity of the applicant was              —     order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 as token
submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected                    damages for the harm suffered;
it in the contested decision.
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
In support of its present application, the applicant submits that
the Commission erred in law and in fact. According to the
applicant, the increase in capacity complies with the provisions
of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EEC and is there-
fore eligible for approval.                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission                      In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the
violated the principle of legal certainty, the applicant's legit-          obligation to state reasons in that the appeal assessor, when
imate expectations and the principle of non-retroactivity.                 drawing up the applicant's report for 1999 to 2001, did not
According to the applicant, the Commission applied criteria                indicate the reasons why he did not take account of the views
which were not in existence at the time the replacement vessel             of the persons consulted or of the difficult working conditions.
was ordered or at the time the application for increase in                 Nor did he explain precisely why the general assessment made
capacity was submitted to the Commission.                                  by him was less favourable than that appearing in the staff
                                                                           report drawn up before the appeal to the Joint Committee on
                                                                           Staff Reports.
In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission had
regard to the nature of the applications for increase prior to
                                                                           The applicant also pleads the non-material damage suffered by
adopting the said criteria and applied criteria that discriminated
                                                                           reason of the belated drawing up of his staff report.
against the applicant. The applicant claims that the exception
for vessels lost at sea and allowing an increase in tonnage in
respect of these new vessels constitutes an unjustified discrimi-
nation.
The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the
principle of proportionality, failed to give adequate or sufficient
reasons and denied the applicant's right to be heard.
                                                                           Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria
                                                                           S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(1) OJ L 175, p. 27.                                                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-194/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/106)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                          (Case T-193/03)                                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A., represented by
                         (2003/C 184/105)                                  P.L. Roncaglia, A.T. Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers.
                    (Language of the Case: French)                         The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Marine Enterprise Projects Società Unipersonale di Alberto
                                                                           Fiorenzi S.r.l.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro,
resident in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium), represented by                      —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne                    Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                     Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1015/
                                                                                2001-4
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the OHIM to dismiss the application for a Commu-
                                                                                nity trade mark No 940007 BAINBRIDGE (figurative);
—     annul the decision establishing the definitive staff report
      for 1997 to 1999;                                                    —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/50              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation
                                                                          for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European
Applicant for Community         Marine Enterprise Projects So-                 Parliament and the Council of the European Union
trade mark:                     cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
                                Fiorenzi S.r.l.
                                                                                (Case T-196/03)
Community       trade   mark    The figurative mark ‘BAIN-                                         (2003/C 184/107)
sought:                         BRIDGE’ — Application for re-
                                gistration No 940007 requested                                (Language of the case: English)
                                for products in Classes 18
                                (Leather and imitations of
                                leather, animal skins, hides;
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                trunks and travelling bags; um-
                                                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                brellas, parasols and walking
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
                                sticks; whips, harness and sadd-
                                                                          European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
                                lery) and 25 (Clothing, foot-
                                                                          Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
                                wear, headgear).
                                                                          lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or sign      The Applicant
cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                          —     Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
ceedings:
                                                                                the alternative, join the questions on admissibility to the
                                                                                examination of the substance
Mark or sign cited in op-       Italian      figurative      marks        —     Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
position:                       ‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and                    2003/15/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the
                                704338) for products in                         Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
                                Class 25, the figurative mark                   76/768/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
                                ‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’ (Reg.                       Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
                                No 593651) for products in                      remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
                                Classes 18 and 25, trade name                   the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of the
                                ‘THE         BRIDGE’          (Reg.             Directive 76/768/EEC.
                                No 642952) for products in
                                Class 25, the three-dimensional           —     order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the
                                marks ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.                        proceedings
                                No 704372 and No 633349)
                                for products in Classes 18 and
                                25, the trade name ‘FOOT-
                                BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 710102) for              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                products in Classes 18 and 25,
                                the figurative mark ‘THE
                                BRIDGE WAYFARER’ (Reg.                    The applicant is a European Economic Interest Grouping
                                No 721569) for products in                representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
                                Classes 18 and 25, the trade              The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
                                                                          concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
                                name ‘OVER THE BRIDGE’
                                                                          on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
                                (Reg. No 630763) for products
                                in Classes 18 and 25, and the             as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
                                trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.             chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
                                No 642953) for products in                reproduction.
                                Class 18.
                                                                          In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
                                                                          the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
Decision of the Opposition      Dismissal of the opposition.              following grounds:
Division:
                                                                          —     The alleged infringement of essential procedural require-
                                                                                ments. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
                                                                                based on an incorrect legal basis. According to the
Decision of the Board of        Dismissal of the appeal.                        applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
Appeal:                                                                         treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
                                                                                movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
                                                                                Further, the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
Pleas in law:                   Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)               powers, in that the contested measure is, according to
                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                     the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
                                (Risk of confusion).                            which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
                                                                                EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                                measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
                                                                                motivation.