title: Case C-214/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus by order of that court of 1 June 1999 in the case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki, Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen                          (a) the final measure of the public authorities is essentially
Käräjäoikeus by order of that court of 1 June 1999 in the                           an act confirming the independently expressed will of
case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki,                          the national councils of the associations concerned; or
             Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola
                          (Case C-214/99)                                      (b) the final measures of the public authorities essentially
                                                                                delegate to the members of the associations concerned
                                                                                the power to set the fee scale at their own discretion,
                          (1999/C 246/21)                                           even after the professional services requested of them
                                                                                have been performed; or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tampereen Kärä-
jäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, of 1 June 1999,                    (c) the final measures of the public authorities do not
which was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1999, for                        contain any indication of being in the public interest
a preliminary ruling in the case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v                         or any upper and longer limits with which the fee scale
Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki, Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola                      set at the practitioner’s discretion must comply; or
on the following question:
Is the prohibition referred to in Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty               (d) the final measures of the public authorities do not
applicable to an exclusive purchasing agreement concluded by                        require professionals to communicate in advance
a supplier of goods, which could be terminated by the retailer                      and/or publicise in any other way the fee scales which
at any time on one year’s notice, if all the exclusive purchasing                   they intend to apply for the services requested of them?
agreements concluded by that supplier have had a significant
influence on the partitioning of the market, either on their               3. Are the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 85 of the
own or together with the network of exclusive purchasing                       Treaty compatible with national legislation which, without
agreements concluded by all suppliers, but the agreements of                   requiring public interest considerations to be taken into
similar duration to the exclusive purchasing agreement in                      account, confers on a fee committee set up by the
question represent only a very small proportion of all the                     association council and composed solely of association
exclusive purchasing agreements of the same supplier, the                      members the power to adopt a discretionary measure
majority of which are fixed-term agreements which have been                    settling the fee, even where it confirms the fee set by the
concluded for a period of several years?                                       member at his own discretion, the force of which is such
                                                                               as to bind the court to make an order for payment in
                                                                               accordance with the measure adopted by the council itself
                                                                               settling the fee?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) by
order of that court of 6 May 1999 in the case of Giuseppe                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
                  Conte against Stefania Rossi                             di Roma, First Civil Division, by order of that court of 12
                                                                           May 1999 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and
                          (Case C-221/99)                                                            C.A.S.E.R. SpA
                          (1999/C 246/22)                                                           (Case C-222/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (1999/C 246/23)
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 6 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 9 June 1999, for a preliminary           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ruling in the case of Giuseppe Conte v Stefania Rossi on the               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Division
following questions:                                                       of the Corte d’Appello di Roma (Rome Court of Appeal) of 12
                                                                           May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 10
1. Is the concept of an ‘undertaking’ set out in the decisions             June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministero
     of the Commission and the case-law of the Court of Justice            delle Finanze and C.A.S.E.R. SpA, on the following questions:
     applicable to those carrying on a professional activity as
     architects and, if so, are architects’ professional associations
     to be regarded as ‘associations of undertakings’ within the           For the purposes of an action brought by a company before
     meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty?                               the Italian courts for the reimbursement of the tassa di
                                                                           concessione governativa (administrative charge) paid from 1985
2. Are the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 85 of the                 to 1992 under laws conflicting with Article 10 of Council
     Treaty compatible with a national rule which simply gives             Directive 69/335/EEC(1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     a fee scale drawn up and determined by the national                   taxes on the raising of capital (see the judgment of 20 April
     associations of engineers and architects the force of law             1993 in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91)(2),
     where:                                                                may Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 23 December 1998 which


title: Action brought on 14 May 1996 by Dimitrios Polivios, residing in Piraeus, against the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-68/96)

text:
No C 210/ 18          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
   the applicant the opportunity to comment on the replies          Action brought on 14 May 1996 by Dimitrios Polivios,
   received from Irish glass companies to the Article 1 1           residing in Piraeus, against the European Union and the
   request for information made by the Commission itself.                   Commission of the European Communities
   Those replies contained important information relating                                  ( Case T-68/96 )
   to the applicant's arguments and were communicated to
   its counsel on various dates, the final replies being                                     ( 96/C 210/46 )
   received on 12 February 1996 . Since the contested
   decision was adopted on 21 February, the
   aforementioned replies therefore formed the basis for                           (Language of the case: Greek)
   it .
                                                                    An action against the European Union and the Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities was brought before the
— Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
   of the right to a fair hearing. In addressing a request for      14 May 1996 by Dimitrios Polivios , residing in Piraeus,
   information, which was not drafted in fair and objective         represented by Konstantinos Zangas, of the Athens Bar,
  terms, to the party which was the subject of the                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
  complaint, the Commission violated the basic                      of Catherine Thill-Camitaki, 15 Avenue du Bois .
  procedural guarantees provided by Community law and
  the applicant's right to a fair hearing. It is apparent from
  that request for information that the Commission had             The applicant claims that the Court should :
  effectively made up its mind on the applicant's
  complaint and investigated the matter purely for the
  sake of form . For this reason, the investigation was not        — déclaré his action admissible ,
  carried out with due care , seriousness and diligence .
                                                                   — require the defendants to pay him ECU 510 840 or, in
                                                                        the alternative ECU 425 700, with legal interest from
                                                                        8 August 1993 until the claim is settled,
— Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and
  of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the
  Commission adopted the contested decision in the form            — order the defendant to pay the costs .
  of a covering letter signed by the Commissioner for
  competition, summarizing the procedure which led to
  the rejection of the complaint and referring, for the            Pleas in law and main arguments
  reasoning of the decision, to a separate document. As a
  result of this unusual form, the applicant has no way of
  knowing if the competent Commissioner ever saw or                The applicant, the owner of a fishing vessel registered in
  adopted the reasoning for rejecting its complaint or even        Piraeus, transferred ownership of his vessel to a joint
  if the reasoning existed in written form at the time when        enterprise in Senegal , and requested payment of the
  the Commissioner signed the covering letter .                    Community financial aid provided to that effect in Council
                                                                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 3944/90 ( OJ No L 380, 1990,
                                                                   P - D
                                                                   He claims that in the calculation of that aid he suffered
— Manifest error of appraisal . According to the applicant,
  the Commission incorrectly defined the relevant product          damage, since the competent services of the European Union
  market as the market for float glass, because the                and of Greece, as a result of serious negligence , did not take
  structure of supply and conditions of competition in the         into account the tonnage of the vessel resulting from the
  market for 4 mm float glass are different from the               application of the rules on tonnage measurement provided
  structure of supply and conditions of competition in the         in the London Convention, but rather the much smaller
  market for other thicknesses of float glass . Furthermore,       tonnage resulting from application of the Greek rules on
                                                                   measurement .
  the Commission should have considered Ireland, and
  not the whole Community , as the relevant geographical
  market, given the particular conditions of competition
                                                                   He claims that the European Union should compensate him
  prevalent in the Irish market for 4 mm float glass .
                                                                   by paying in full the additional aid which would have been
                                                                   paid had the measurement been carried out on the basis of
                                                                   the London Convention or, at least, a proportion of the
                                                                   amount of the additional aid , in view of the fact that part of
                                                                   the aid is granted from national funds .


title: Case C-59/15: Order of the President of the Court of 1 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro — Italy) — Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl v Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Affari di Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro — Italy) — Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl v Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Affari di Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-59/15) (1)

   (2016/C 078/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-189/01: Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 303/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.10.2001
a company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of              The Commission’s argument that the applicant’s copyright is a
the State of Delaware (USA), represented by Nicholas Levy,               prerequisite for entering the market is, according to the
John Temple Lang and Robert O’Donoghue, of Cleary, Gottlieb,             applicant, also incorrect and based on a misinterpretation of
Steen & Hamilton, Brussels (Belgium).                                    the facts. The applicant states that its competitors are using a
                                                                         different structure to present the information and that new-
                                                                         comers in the market are free to develop their own structure.
                                                                         The applicant claims that its ‘1 860 brick structure’ is not the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              de facto industry standard, but merely the format used by the
                                                                         leading data services provider.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001,
      ordering interim measures in case COMP D3/38044,
                                                                         The applicant further claims that there is no prima facie case to
                                                                         justify the ordering of an interim measure. Also, the Com-
alternatively                                                            mission has erred in weighing the interests involved for the
                                                                         purposes of ordering the interim measures. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the grant of a licence would cause irreparable
—     annul the decision insofar as it requires IMS Health to            damage to its business and render its intellectual property
      license the 1 860 Brick Structure to companies currently           rights devoid of all purpose.
      present on the German market for regional sales data
      services and specifies the conditions under which the
      negotiation of licence terms is to be conducted and                The applicant further claims that the Commission has violated
      approved by the Commission,                                        the applicant’s rights of defence during the preliminary
                                                                         procedure.
and, in any event,
—     order the Commission to pay IMS Health’s legal costs and
      expenses in relation to this matter;
—     adopt all such further measures as the Court may consider
      appropriate.                                                       Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-189/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 303/34)
The applicant provides regional sales data in Germany to                                    (Language of the case: French)
pharmaceutical companies. It has developed in that connection
a specific presentation of this information, called the
‘1 860 brick structure’, of which the applicant holds the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
intellectual property rights in Germany.                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
                                                                         Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission has ordered an interim measure relating to a
proceeding against the applicant under Article 82 of the EC
Treaty, requiring the applicant to grant licences for the use of         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the ‘1 860 brick structure’ to third parties currently present on
the German market for the provision of regional sales data.              —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
That measure is currently contested by the applicant.                          22 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
                                                                               name should not be included on the list of grade A 5
                                                                               officials considered the most deserving of promotion
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the                   under the 1999 promotion procedure and, as a result,
Commission has violated the protection granted by national                     that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A 4
and international law to its intellectual property rights. The                 under the 1999 promotions procedure;
right to refuse access to one’s intellectual property constitutes,
according to the applicant, the essence of intellectual property         —     in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
rights. Such a refusal is not therefore contrary to Article 82                 decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
EC, unless it is accompanied by additional conduct. Such                       cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
conduct is, according to the applicant, not present in this case.              Staff Regulations;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 303/21
—     consequently annul the 1999 A 4 promotions procedure                     —     Managium, relating to the Biogaz, Solaire Bioclima-
      with regard to the applicant;                                                  tique and Biogaz contracts is unlawful, since those
                                                                                invoices cover the services actually provided by the
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.                        applicant’s Managing Director in accordance with
                                                                                the work programme;
                                                                               and consequently declare that the fees charged by Deira
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                and Managium must be accepted;
In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same            —     declare that the decision terminating the Photovoltaic
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01. In addition the applicant                    SME/1883/98-EU contract is unlawful;
alleges non-compliance with the promotions procedure.
                                                                               and consequently declare that the Commission has no
                                                                               legal right to claim repayment of the advance of
                                                                               36 000 Euros paid by way of financial contribution;
                                                                         —     declare that the Commission’s decision retroactively
                                                                               terminating the Transport DIS/1178/1997-BE Agreement
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Groupement                             is unlawful;
européen d’intérêt économique Lior against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                                and consequently declare that the Commission has no
                                                                               legal right to claim repayment of the initial advance of
                          (Case T-192/01)                                      36 000 Euros paid by way of financial contribution, and
                                                                               that the contract should run its term;
                          (2001/C 303/35)
                                                                         As regards the Altener                      Agores       XVII/
                                                                         41030/Z/99-085 contract
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 Euros,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      representing the final instalment of its financial contri-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     bution, together with interest at the statutory rate from
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by the Groupe-                          the date of the letter of 23 July 2001 giving formal notice
ment européen d’intérêt économique Lior, established in                        to pay;
Brussels, represented by Véronique Marien and Joëlle Chou-
croun, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               As regards the Thermie and Altener con-
                                                                         tracts
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
In the context of performance of Thermie                                       the damage suffered in the context of the performance of
contracts                                                                      all of the Thermie and Altener contracts, initially esti-
                                                                               mated, on a fair and equitable basis, to amount to the
—     order the European Commission to pay the final instal-                   sum of 1 million Euros, subject to increase or decrease in
      ment of its financial contribution, namely:                              the course of proceedings;
      —     for the Biomasse           SME/1539/97        contract:      —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
            40 500 Euros
      —     for the Windenergy           SME/792/96       contract:
            36 000 Euros,
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      together with interest at the statutory rate from the date
      of the letter of 6 July 2001 giving formal notice to pay
      until payment in full;                                             The applicant in the present case, a European economic
                                                                         interest grouping with 10 members representing 4 countries
—     declare that the Commission’s decision rejecting the               of the European Union, concluded several contracts with the
      invoices of its members                                            Commission under the Thermie Programme, Section B, with
                                                                         the aim of creating CD-ROMs concerning:
      —     Deira, relating to all of the Thermie contracts, is
            unlawful, in that it is based on a non-contractual           —     the management of biogas obtained from waste and
            audit of its accounts;                                             waste-water treatment (Biogaz SME/003/95-BE contract);


title: Case C-17/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by Mr Eugen Popp and Mr Stefan M. Zech against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 in Case T-463/12 Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/13

         Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by Mr Eugen Popp and Mr Stefan M. Zech against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 in Case T-463/12 Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-17/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   The Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in a judgment of 26 October 2015 and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 November 2012 in Case E-19/11 — Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State (Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)

text:
               14.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 75/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 30 November 2012
   in Case E-19/11
   Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State
   (Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)
   2013/C 75/08
   In Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on whether Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement preclude a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol from refusing to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 30 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

               It does not contravene Article 16(1) EEA if an EEA State provides in legislation, or through administrative acts, that a body exercising a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol may refuse to accept for sale in its outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine.

               However, such a selection rule must apply in the same manner to domestic and imported alcoholic beverages containing stimulants. If, as in the present case, there is no domestic production, and the selection rule does not aim to protect domestic production of similar products, it cannot be deemed to place operators or products from other EEA States at a disadvantage.


title: Case C-352/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Article 11(1)(a) — Whether applicable to transaction tax)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-352/08) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Whether applicable to transaction tax)
   2010/C 179/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.1) — Concept of tax evasion or tax avoidance — Transaction aimed at escaping a national tax not referred to in the Directive’s list of taxes which may not be levied

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States is to be interpreted as meaning that the favourable arrangements which that directive introduces may not be withheld from a taxpayer who has sought, by way of a legal stratagem involving a company merger, to avoid the levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely transaction tax, where that tax does not come within the scope of application of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.


title: Case C-209/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NG against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-193/16: NG v European Council

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/13

         Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NG against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-193/16: NG v European Council
   (Case C-209/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: NG (represented by: P. O’Shea, BL, I. Whelan, BL, B. Burns, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Council

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the whole of the order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 by which the General Court held that the action be dismissed on the ground of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;

               —

               Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-193/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;

               —

               Remit the issues raised in these proceedings for adjudication back to the General Court with a direction that it should accept jurisdiction.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Failure to give reasons;

               2.

               Failure to properly consider whether the challenged agreement was in reality a decision of the respondent;

               3.

               Ignoring relevant factual issues;

               4.

               Failure to consider evidence that was before it;

               5.

               Failure to fully investigate and assess material issues;

               6.

               Failure to make further relevant enquiries;

               7.

               Making a decision without the benefit of sufficient information;

               8.

               Disregarding the principles established by the Court in case C-294/83.


title: Case T-209/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 June 2011 — MB System v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Recovery obligation — Application for stay of execution — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 21 June 2011 — MB System v Commission
   (Case T-209/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Recovery obligation - Application for stay of execution - Urgency - Balancing of interests)
   2011/C 252/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MB System GmbH & Co. KG (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, M. Ackermann and C. Geiert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 8289 final of 14 December 2010 on State aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) granted by Germany to the Biria Group.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-213/96)

text:
No C 54/34           EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 18 December 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef              Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Bernard
   against the Commission of the European Communities               Connolly against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                      ( Case T-213/96 )
                                                                                Case T-2 14/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/55 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/56 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   1996 by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van
1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                 Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                     Fort Rheinsheim .
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                          Bfrs 750 000 as compensation for the damage caused
                                                                          by the facts giving rise to the action,
— order the Commission to pay Giorgio Lebedef                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    compensation of Bfrs 100 000 or such other sum as
    the Court may think fit,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-203/95 ('),
— reserve to the applicant the right to increase his claim         T-34/96 ( 2 ) and T-163/96 (•*), alleges that the Commission
    during the proceeding and as may appear appropriate,           has waged a particularly harsh campaign against him
                                                                   concurrently with disciplinary proceedings, following the
                                                                   publication of his book The rotten heart of Europe: The
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                           dirty war for Europe 's money. He considers that this
                                                                   campaign was based on insults, abuse and defamation;
                                                                   that is to say, on conduct incompatible with any
                                                                   behaviour appropriate to rational , active administration .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   In support of his claims, the applicant merely states that
                                                                   the facts that do not have the nature of decisions but
The applicant, who is Secretary-General of the union               which caused this action to be introduced constitute a
'Action & Defense — Luxembourg', seeks to appeal                   breach of the second paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff
against the decisions refusing the representatives of that         Regulations for which the defendant institution must incur
union time off work and the necessary means ( invitations,         liability.
essential information, travel and subsistence expenses ) to
enable them to attend meetings of the trade unions or staff        O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 16 .
associations and the Commission relating to general staff          ( 2 ) OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p. 32 .
matters, in particular in respect of the meetings of               (') OJ No C 370 , 7. 12 . 1996 , p . 18 .
8 January 1996, the contact committee of 17 January
1996 and the concerted political planning of 2 February
1996 , brought forward to 1 February 1996 .
                                                                   Action brought on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of          Goossens against the Commission of the European
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of the decision of the                                       Communities
Council of 23 June 1981 establishing a consultation
procedure, failure to comply with general principles of law                                    ( Case T-217/96 )
and general principles of trade union law recognized by                                           ( 97/C 54/57 )
decisions of the Community judicature and Convention
No 151 of the General International Labour Conference .                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-304/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Third-country national having a young dependent child who is a Union citizen — Right to reside in the Member State of which the child is a national — Criminal convictions of the child’s parent — Decision to expel the parent resulting in the indirect expulsion of the child concerned)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS
   (Case C-304/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Third-country national having a young dependent child who is a Union citizen - Right to reside in the Member State of which the child is a national - Criminal convictions of the child’s parent - Decision to expel the parent resulting in the indirect expulsion of the child concerned))
   (2016/C 419/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Respondent: CS

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-701/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA — Earlier national word mark Lubeca — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the public — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA)
   (Case T-701/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA - Earlier national word mark Lubeca - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the public - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 063/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stock Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2015 (Case R 1788/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lass & Steffen Wein- und Spirituosen-Import and Stock Polska.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Stock Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case F-109/15: Action brought on 28 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/36

         Action brought on 28 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-109/15)
   (2015/C 328/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Wolff, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to grant the applicant an installation allowance

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Head of Unit ‘Individual rights and remuneration’ of 12 December 2014, and the defendant’s decision of 20 April 2015;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay an installation allowance of EUR 21  688,20, plus statutory interest, from the date of the application being lodged;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-147/09: Order of the President of the Court of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria)) — Ronald Seunig v Maria Hölzel

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria)) — Ronald Seunig v Maria Hölzel
   (Case C-147/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/51
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case T-154/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/45

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission
   (Case T-154/13) (1)

   2014/C 45/81
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-319/15: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited v Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/13

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited v Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique
   (Case C-319/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 260/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d'appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

      Re:

   There is no need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (France) by decision of 22 June 2015.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case C-379/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — General principal of the liability of Member States for infringements of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance — Exclusion of any liability on the part of the Member State for an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by a court adjudicating at last instance — Limitation by the national legislature of the Member State's liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct committed by such a court)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/14

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-379/10) (1)

      (Failure to fulfil obligations - General principal of the liability of Member States for infringements of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance - Exclusion of any liability on the part of the Member State for an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by a court adjudicating at last instance - Limitation by the national legislature of the Member State's liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct committed by such a court)
      (2012/C 25/21)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro and M. Nolin, acting as Agents

         Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the general principle of the liability of Member States for infringement of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance — Liability limited to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that

                              —

                              by excluding all liability of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals through an infringement of European Union law on the part of a court adjudicating at last instance when that infringement results from an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court and

                              —

                              by limiting that liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct,

                        pursuant to Article 2(1) and (2) of Law No 117on the reparation of damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges [legge n. 117 (sul) risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell’ esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità civile dei magistrati], of 13 April 1988 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the general principal of the liability of Member States for infringements of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case F-88/14: Action brought on 2 September 2014  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/48

         Action brought on 2 September 2014 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-88/14)
   (2015/C 007/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: Sébastien Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Declaration of the inapplicability of Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Article 1(70) of

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               Annul decisions reducing the applicants’ annual leave as from 2014;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-128/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Fisheries — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 — Validity — Fishing opportunities — Precautionary approach — Principle of relative stability of fishing activities — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment — Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-128/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Fisheries - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 - Validity - Fishing opportunities - Precautionary approach - Principle of relative stability of fishing activities - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier))
   (2017/C 063/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, A. de Gregorio Merino and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, I. Galindo Martín and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Order the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-287/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public contracts — Directive 2004/17/EC — Procedures for the award of contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Incorrect or incomplete transposition — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-287/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public contracts - Directive 2004/17/EC - Procedures for the award of contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Incorrect or incomplete transposition - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 141/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, D. Kukovec and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven and J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose completely and correctly Article 1(2)(b), the second subparagraph of Article 1(2)(c), Article 1(2)(d) and the second subparagraph of Article 1(13), Article 14(4), Article 17(10)(a) and (c), Article 34(8), Article 36(2), Article 39(2), Article 45(1) and (3)(a) and (c), Article 48(1) to (4) and (6)(c), the second indent of Article 49(2), Article 49(3) to (5), the first subparagraph of Article 50(1) under (c), Article 52(1), the second subparagraph of Article 57(1) under (d) and (e) and the first sentence of Article 57(3), and Article 65(2) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, and

                           —

                           by failing to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 9, Article 34(2), Article 52(3) and the second sentence of Article 57(3) of Directive 2004/17,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 08.09.2007.


title: Case C-283/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București) v Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — UCMR — ADA (Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3 — Concept of ‘communication of a work to a public present at the place where the communication originates’ — Dissemination of musical works in the presence of an audience without paying the collective management organisation the appropriate copyright fee — Entry into contracts, with the authors of the works, for copyright waiver — Scope of Directive 2001/29)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București) v Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — UCMR — ADA
      (Case C-283/10) (1)

      (Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3 - Concept of ‘communication of a work to a public present at the place where the communication originates’ - Dissemination of musical works in the presence of an audience without paying the collective management organisation the appropriate copyright fee - Entry into contracts, with the authors of the works, for copyright waiver - Scope of Directive 2001/29)
      (2012/C 25/15)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București)

         Defendant: Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — UCMR — ADA

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Dissemination of musical works in the presence of an audience without paying the collective management organisation the appropriate copyright fee — Entry into contracts, with the authors of the works, for copyright waiver — Concept of ‘communication of a work to a public present at the place where the communication originates’ — Scope of Directive 2001/29

         Operative part of the judgment

      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and, more specifically, Article 3(1) thereof, must be interpreted as referring only to communication to a public which is not present at the place where the communication originates, to the exclusion of any communication of a work which is carried out directly in a place open to the public using any means of public performance or direct presentation of the work.

         (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-244/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/58

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission
   (Case T-244/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/98
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-486/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.1.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 21/19
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                           (Case C-486/03)                                       period all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                                11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                            (2004/C 21/34)                                       to a number of undertakings in Vizcaya (notified under
                                                                                No C(2001)1765) in the form of a tax credit of 45 % of
                                                                                the investments made, or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                                notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Nov-                      its obligations under that decision;
ember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,              —     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures necessary to comply with
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
      11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain            C-485/03.
      to a number of undertakings in Guipúzcoa (notified
      under No C(2001)1764) in the form of a tax credit of
      45 % of the investments made, or, in any event, by
      failing to notify the Commission of such provisions in
      accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision;
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-488/03)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-485/03.                                                                                (2004/C 21/36)
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
                                                                           vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-487/03)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                            (2004/C 21/35)                                       period all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                                11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                                                                                to a number of recently created undertakings in Álva
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        (notified under No C(2001)1760) in the form of a tax
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                       credit of 45 % of the investments made, or, in any event,
vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,                           by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions in
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,                    accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision;


title: Case T-342/09: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2011 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/42

         Order of the General Court of 2 December 2011 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)
   (Case T-342/09) (1)

   2012/C 32/83
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case F-59/07: Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Feral v Committee of the Regions

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/51

         Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Feral v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-59/07)
   (2007/C 199/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pierre-Alexis Feral (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Administration Director and the Secretary General of the CoR of 26 July 2006 to recover the amounts paid to the applicant in application of the correction coefficient for that part of his remuneration transferred to France between March 2003 and May 2005;

               —

               annul the decision of 4 December 2006 of the Administration Director of CoR fixing that amount at EUR 3 600,16;

               —

               order the CoR to repay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 600,16, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the recovery until payment in full;

               —

               order the CoR to pay to the applicant the amount which should have been paid to him if the correct correction coefficient had been applied to the part of his remuneration which should have been transferred to France from June 2005, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the recovery until payment in full;

               —

               order the CoR to resume, from the date of the future judgment, the transfer of part of the applicant's remuneration to France, with the correction coefficient applicable to that country;

               —

               order the CoR to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first plea in law alleges infringement of (i) Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), (ii) the final indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Rules laying down the procedure for the transfer of part of an official's emoluments (‘the Common Rules’) and (iii) paragraphs 2 and 4 of Conclusion No 204/92 of the Heads of Administration of 3 December 1992. According to the applicant, the CoR could not hold that he was not entitled, pursuant to Article 17(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, to have part of his remuneration transferred to his building savings account in France on the ground that he had, through transfers to a deposit account, brought his building savings account once more below the maximum amount which could be saved. In particular, he submits that (i) the Common Rules do not require that transfers correspond to obligatory payments and (ii) bringing the building savings account below the maximum limit in this way is an established banking practice which complies with French law on building savings accounts, as referred to by the Conclusion of the Administrative Heads.
   The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as the CoR found that the irregularity of the transfers at issue was so apparent that, in view of his legal qualifications, the applicant was or, at the very least, ought to have been aware of it. In that respect, the applicant considers that: (i) in the light of the Conclusion of the Heads of Administration, the building savings account which he opened appeared to correspond to the concept of ‘building savings contract’ for the purposes of the Common Rules; (ii) bringing the building savings account below the maximum limit in the way he did appeared to comply with those rules; (iii) following reviews in December 2003 and December 2004, his personnel file appeared to be complete and in order; (iv) having only restricted access to his personnel file, he was not in a position to consult the necessary documents in order to review whether the transfers were in order.


title: Case T-466/11: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia and Hoern v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Shipbuilding — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard — Measures implementing the Commission’s decision finding that the aid is incompatible with the common market and ordering that it be repaid — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/46

         Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia and Hoern v Commission
   (Case T-466/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Shipbuilding - Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard - Measures implementing the Commission’s decision finding that the aid is incompatible with the common market and ordering that it be repaid - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 26/91
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE (Skaramagka, Greece), and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: K Chrysogonos and A. Mitsis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission letter C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010 relating to ‘State aid case CR 16/2004 — Implementation of the negative Decision with recovery concerning State aid in favour of [the company Ellinika Nafpigeia AE] — Invocation by Greece of Article 346 paragraph 1 (b) TFEU and proceedings under Article 348 paragraph 1 TFEU’, as supplemented by the documents and other material on the file of which the applicants became partially aware in June 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application by Nafpigikes kai viomichanikes epicheiriseis Elefsinas for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The applicant for leave to intervene, Nafpigikes kai viomichanikes epicheiriseis Elefsinas, shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 1999 in Case C-342/96 Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Application of the statutory interest rate to agreements for the repayment of wages and the payment of debts in respect of social security contributions)

text:
17.7.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/9
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                          (Second Chamber)
                          of 29 April 1999                                                          of 29 April 1999
in Case C-342/96 Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the                      in Case C-136/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                    European Communities (1)                               by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal
                                                                           Centre): Norbury Developments Ltd v Commissioners of
                                                                                Customs & Excise (1)
(State aid — Application of the statutory interest rate to
agreements for the repayment of wages and the payment of
        debts in respect of social security contributions)                 (VAT — Sixth Directive — Transitional provisions —
                                                                              Maintenance of exemptions — Supply of building land)
                           (1999/C 204/16)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/17)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-136/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-342/96: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Paloma Plaza                    the EC Treaty by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester
Garcia) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in
Paul F. Nemitz and Fernando Castillo de la Torre) — application            the proceedings pending before that court between Norbury
under Article 173 of the EC Treaty for annulment of Com-                   Developments Ltd and Commissioners of Customs & Excise,
mission Decision 97/21/ECSC, EC of 30 July 1996 on State                   on the interpretation of Article 28(3)(b) of the Sixth Council
aid granted in favour of Compañı́a Española de Tubos por                 Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
Extrusión SA, located in Llodio, Alava (OJ 1997 L 8, p. 14)               of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch                        Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for                  ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), read in conjunction with point
the President of the Sixth Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R.                    16 of Annex F thereto — the Court (Second Chamber),
Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate General: A. La Pergola, Regis-                 composed of G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
trar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment             G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
on 29 April 1999, in which it:                                             General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in
                                                                           which it has ruled:
1. Annuls Commission Decision 97/21/ECSC, EC of 30 July
     1996 on State aid granted in favour of Compañia Española de
     Tubos por Extrusión SA in so far as it declares incompatible
     with Article 92 of the EC Treaty the measures adopted by the          In relation to the supply of building land, a Member State is entitled
     Kingdom of Spain in favour of Compañia Española de Tubos            to exempt that supply under Article 28(3)(b) of the Sixth Council
     por Extrusión SA inasmuch as the interest rate of 9 % charged        Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
     on the sums owed by the latter to the Fondo de Garantı́a Salarial     the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
    and to the Social Security Fund is lower than the prevailing           system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, read in
    market rates;                                                          conjunction with point 16 of Annex F thereto, notwithstanding the
                                                                           fact that, on the one hand, it has since the adoption of that directive
                                                                           introduced an election to waive the exemption from value added tax
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             in respect of such supplies and, on the other hand, it has reduced the
                                                                           material scope of the exemption applicable to such supplies so that
                                                                           some previously exempt supplies are now subject to value added tax.
3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 388 of 21.12.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2000 in Case T-121/99: Sean Irving v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post — Time-limits for proceedings — Rights of the defence)

text:
C 192/16               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported
                         of 16 May 2000                                   by Government of Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and
                                                                          M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
in Case T-121/99: Sean Irving v Commission of the                         service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch and Wolter,
                   European Communities (1)                               11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union (Agents
                                                                          J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, (Agent T. van Rijn), Kingdom of Spain
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post                    (Agent M. López-Monis Gallego) and French Republic (Agent:
     — Time-limits for proceedings — Rights of the defence)               C. Chavance) — application for partial suspension of the
                                                                          operation of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November
                         (2000/C 192/27)                                  1997 amending at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the
                                                                          association of the overseas countries and territories with the
                                                                          European Economic Community (OJ 1997 L 329 p. 50) —
                   (Language of the case: English)                        the President of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has made an order on 6 April 2000, the
In Case T-121/99: Sean Irving, a former official of the                   operative part of which is as follows:
Commission, represented by N. Butler, Barrister, and J.
McGuill, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1. It is unnecessary to give a decision on the application for interim
at the Chambers of S. Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume v                         measures.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application for annulment of the decisions of the Com-                  2. Costs are reserved.
mission of 16 July 1998 removing the applicant from his post
and of 26 February 1999 rejecting the complaint lodged by
the applicant against the first decision — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 6 April 2000
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          in Case T-44/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Association regime for overseas countries and territories —
                                                                          Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 2553/97 — Proceedings for interim measures)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 192/29)
                         of 6 April 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case T-43/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                Council of the European Union                             In Case T-44/98 R II, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established
                                                                          at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, Advo-
(Association regime for overseas countries and territories —              cate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Proceedings for                      Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      interim measures — Unnecessary to give a decision)                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported
                                                                          by Government of Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and
                         (2000/C 192/28)                                  M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch and
                                                                          Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Communities, (Agent T. van Rijn), supported by Council of
                                                                          the European Union (Agents J. Huber and G. Houttuin),
In Case T-43/98 R II, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established             Kingdom of Spain (Agent M. López-Monis Gallego) and French
at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, Advo-               Republic (Agent: C. Chavance) — application, first, for suspen-
cate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der                    sion of the operation of the Commission Decision of


title: Case C-150/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Late payment of own resources — Default interest payable — Accounting rules — ATA system)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-150/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Late payment of own resources - Default interest payable - Accounting rules - ATA system)
   (2009/C 69/06)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J.A. Anjos and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6(2), 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) — Refusal to pay default interest in the case of late payment of own resources under the ATA system — Accounting rules
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the default interest payable on account of the late payment of own resources under the ATA system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2) and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-93/16: Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/43

         Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)
   (Case T-93/16)
   (2016/C 136/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘VANGUARD’ — Application for registration No 11 166 003

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 69/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.