title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1997 in Case T-77/94: Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Closure of procedure on a complaint in the absence of a response by the complainants within the time-limit notified to them - Compatibility with Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of floricultural products to undertakings established on the premises of a cooperative auction society - Compatibility with Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive purchase obligation accepted by certain wholesalers reselling such products to retailers in a specific trading area forming part of the same premises - Discrimination - Effect on trade between Member States - Assessment by reference to a body of rules taken as a whole - Lack of appreciable effect)

text:
28 . 6 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/23
under Article 3 (2 ) of Council Regulation No 17 of                  Drijber), supported by Cooperatieve Vereniging De Ver
6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing                       enigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer (VBA ) BA, established
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special               in Aalsmeer, represented by G. van der Wal, a lawyer with
Edition 1959-62, p. 87 ) — the Court of First Instance               right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden,
( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and                      Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue — application for
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                      the annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            Commission's letter of 20 December 1993 relating to
14 May 1997, in which it:                                            Cases IV/32.751 — Florimex/Aalsmeer II, IV/32.990 —
                                                                     VGB/Aalsmeer, IV/33.190 — Inkoop Service and M. Ver
                                                                     haar BV/Aalsmeer, IV/32.835 — Cultra and IV/33.624 —
1 . annuls the Commission decision notified to the                   Bloemveilingen Aalsmeer III — the Court of First Instance
     applicants by letter SG(92)D/8782 of 2 July 1992;               ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed
                                                                     of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and
                                                                     A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
2.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     pay the applicants ' costs;                                     14 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                     1.   annuls the Commission 's decision contained in its
3 . orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay                letter of 20 December 1993 concerning Cases IV/
     the costs incurred by the applicants as a result of its              32.751 — Florimex/Aalsmeer II, IV/32.990 — VGB/
     intervention .
                                                                          Aalsmeer, IV/33.190 — Inkoop Service and M. Ver
                                                                          haar BV/Aalsmeer, IV/32.835 — Cultra and IV/33.624
(') OJ No C 278 , 27. 10 . 1992 .                                         — Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer III to the extent to
                                                                          which it rejects the applicants ' complaints that the
                                                                          intervener's type I, II and III trade agreements infringe
                                                                          Article 85 (1 ) of the Treaty;
                                                                     2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                       of 14 May 1997
in Case T-77/94: Vereniging van Groothandelaren in                   O OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
Bloemkwekerijprodukten and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities ( ] )
(Competition — Closure of procedure on a complaint in
the absence of a response by the complainants within the
time-limit notified to them — Compatibility with                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers
who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of                      ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
floricultural products to undertakings established on the                                   of 14 March 1997
premises of a cooperative auction society — Compatibility
with Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive                in Case T-25/96: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt
purchase obligation accepted by certain wholesalers                  Unternehmen and Others v. Commission of the European
reselling such products to retailers in a specific trading                                    Communities ( ] )
area forming part of the same premises — Discrimination              (Action for annulment — Contested decision withdrawn
— Effect on trade between Member States — Assessment
                                                                     in the course of proceedings — No need to give a
by reference to a body of rules taken as a whole — Lack                                            decision)
                     of appreciable effect)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/65 )
                          ( 97/C 199/64 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case T-25/96 : Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt
                                                                     Unternehmen, established in Bonn, composed of the
In Case T-77/94 : Vereniging van Groothandelaren in                  following: — Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co Luftver
Bloemkwekerijprodukten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service                  kehrs-KG, having its registered office in Oberursel
Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV, established in Aalsmeer               ( Germany ), — Air Berlin GmbH & Co Luftverkehrs-KG,
( Netherlands ), represented by J. A. M. P. Keijser, of the          having its registered office in Berlin ( Germany), — Condor
Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              Flugdienst GmbH, having its registered office in Kelster
care of Stanbrook and Hooper, at the Chambers of A.                  bach ( Germany ), — Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against                       having its registered office in Berlin ( Germany), — Hapag
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: B. J.                Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH, having its registered office in


title: Case T-225/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/35

         Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)
   (Case T-225/16)
   (2016/C 232/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before the EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Ganz schön ausgeschlafen’ — Application for registration No 13 610 316

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1234/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-234/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad, Varna, Bulgaria) — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Taxation — VAT — Right of deduction — Contribution in kind — Destruction of property — New buildings — Adjustment)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad, Varna, Bulgaria) — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-234/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Contribution in kind - Destruction of property - New buildings - Adjustment)
   2012/C 379/14
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad, Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TETS Haskovo AD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Requirements to adjust input VAT deducted on acquisition of property — National legislation providing for adjustment of input VAT deductions upon destruction of property — Destruction of buildings with sole aim of constructing in their place new buildings fulfilling the same purpose, and used for future supplies giving entitlement to deduction of input VAT

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the destruction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of several buildings intended for energy production and their replacement by more modern buildings which fulfil the same purpose as the demolished buildings does not constitute a change, after the VAT return was made, in the factors used to determine the amount of VAT to be deducted as input tax, and, therefore, does not lead to an obligation to adjust the deduction made.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case T-270/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ANKO AE v Research Executive Agency (REA)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/37

         Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ANKO AE v Research Executive Agency (REA)
   (Case T-270/15)
   (2015/C 279/46)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the suspension of payment which the Research Executive Agency (REA) applied with respect to the sum which it continues to owe to the applicant as its contribution to the ESS project is in breach of its contractual obligations and, consequently, ΑΝΚΟ should be paid the remaining part of its contribution, the sum of EUR 1 25  253,82, with legal interest, and

               —

               order the REA to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   With this action the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union should, under Article 272 TFEU, declare that the suspension of payment which the Research Executive Agency applied with respect to the sum which it continues to owe to the applicant as its contribution to the ESS project in the context of the FP7 programme is in breach of its contractual obligations and, consequently, that that sum should be paid to ΑΝΚΟ, with interest from the date of lodging this action.
   In particular, ΑΝΚΟ maintains that it fully and properly performed its contractual obligations. In contrast, the Research Executive Agency (REA) suspended its payments to ΑΝΚΟ, in breach of Section ΙΙ.5 (3)(d) of Annex ΙΙ to the principal agreement for the ESS project. For that reason, the Research Executive Agency (REA) continues to owe to the applicant with respect to the ESS project the sum payment of which was unlawfully suspended, namely EUR 1 25  253,82.
   In particular, ΑΝΚΟ maintains that the suspension of payments by the Research Executive Agency (REA) to it with respect to the ESS project is contrary to the ESS project agreement and to EU law for the following reasons:

               —

               First, the Research Executive Agency (REA) unlawfully suspended payments to ΑΝΚΟ, since none of the five conditions set out in Section ΙΙ.5 (3)(d) of Annex ΙΙ to the principal agreement applies.

               —

               Second, the Research Executive Agency (REA) unlawfully laid down a condition, on which the suspension of payments could be terminated, for which no provision was made in the contractual documents and which is contrary to EU law.


title: Case T-11/13: Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/24

         Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)
   (Case T-11/13)
   2013/C 55/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann and E. Schaper, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Irega AG (Zuchwil, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2012 in Case R 1522/2011-1 and declare Community trade mark No 3 786 134‘MEGO’ invalid; in the alternative, annul that decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for reassessment;

               —

               order the intervener and OHIM to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings, the appeal proceedings and the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MEGO’ for goods in Classes 6 and 20 — Community trade mark No 3 786 134

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Irega AG

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national, Community and international registrations of the word mark ‘TEGO’, the national and Community trade marks ‘TEGOMETALL’ and the national, Community and international registrations of the figurative mark, which includes the word element ‘Tegometall’, for goods in Classes 6, 20 and 21

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Incorrect application of the principle of res judicata

               —

               Infringement of Article 34(2) and Article 8(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

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


title: Case T-118/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament (Interim proceedings — Institutional law — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation — Suspension of prefinancing — Obligation to provide a bank guarantee — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/51

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament
   (Case T-118/17 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation - Suspension of prefinancing - Obligation to provide a bank guarantee - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
   (2017/C 283/80)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (IDDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Plasschaert and É. Montens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, seeking, first, the suspension of operation of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-28 of 15 December 2016 concerning the funding allocated to the applicant in so far as it suspends payment of prefinancing, second, exemption from the requirement to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for prefinancing and, third, an order that the Parliament pay to the applicant the prefinancing amount.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-21/03: Action brought on 21 January 2003 by "S" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 83/22                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 21 January 2003 by ‘S’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board of 23 October
      2002 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in general                                   (Case T-21/03)
      competition CJ/LA/14;
                                                                                (2003/C 83/50)
—     annul the express rejection of the complaint lodged by
      the applicant as notified on 9 November 2003 by letter
      from Marc Ronayne;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 January 2003 by S, represented
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant, a candidate in general competition CJ/LA/14,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
organised by the Court of Justice with a view to constituting a
reserve list of Greek-language lawyer-linguists, objects to not
being admitted to the oral test for having failed to obtain the            —     Annul the decision of 11 March 2002 of the Head of the
minimum requisite marks in the first compulsory written                          ‘Occupational disease and accident insurance’ sector
paper (translation of a legal text drafted in French).                           rejecting the applicant’s request to have removed from
                                                                                the file forwarded to the medical officer all reports drawn
                                                                                up to her knowledge relating to her ability, efficiency and
                                                                                conduct;
In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to withdraw from the file forwarded
                                                                                to the medical officer the originals of the reports in
—     failure to observe the duty to state reasons. The applicant                question, send them to the applicant and destroy all
      claims in that regard that the selection board cannot rely                 copies;
      on the secrecy of its deliberations in order not to fulfil
      the obligation to give reasons to a candidate who requests
      them;                                                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     irregularities in the conduct of the tests in the competition
      and breach of the principle of equality as between the
      candidates in that, in view of the system for preserving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the anonymity of the candidates, the applicant is justified
      in wondering whether the written test script attributed to
      her when the tests were being marked is indeed hers. That
      method for ensuring anonymity, which she describes as                The applicant in these proceedings objects to all the reports
      unusual, constitutes, furthermore, a substantive irregu-             relating to her ability, efficiency and conduct, which have to
      larity.                                                              her knowledge been drawn up, not placed in her personal file
                                                                           and communicated to the defendant’s medical officer, being
                                                                           made available to the medical committee called upon to give a
—     infringement of the competition notice and of Article 5              decision on her case in response to a request for her illness to
      of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; manifest error of             be recognised as occupational in origin.
      assessment. The applicant states in that respect that the
      purpose of the test in question was to assess whether
      each of the candidates had perfect command of Greek
      and good knowledge of French on the basis of objective               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
      criteria which were identical for each of the candidates.            her right to a fair hearing and of Articles 26 and 43 of the
                                                                           Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-300/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 30 July 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie; other party: F. Toprak

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 30 July 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie; other party: F. Toprak
   (Case C-300/09)
   2009/C 267/60
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Other party: F. Toprak

      Question referred

   Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, taken by the Association Council set up under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that a new restriction, within the terms of that provision, includes a tightening in respect of a provision which entered into force after 1 December 1980, and which constituted a relaxation of the provision which had been in force on 1 December 1980, if that tightening does not amount to a deterioration vis-à-vis the provision which was in force on 1 December 1980?


title: Case C-236/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental rights — Combating discrimination — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to and supply of goods and services — Insurance premiums and benefits — Actuarial factors — Sex as a factor in the assessment of insurance risks — Private life assurance contracts — Directive 2004/113/EC — Article 5(2) — Derogation not subject to any temporal limitation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 23 — Invalidity)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-236/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental rights - Combating discrimination - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Insurance premiums and benefits - Actuarial factors - Sex as a factor in the assessment of insurance risks - Private life assurance contracts - Directive 2004/113/EC - Article 5(2) - Derogation not subject to any temporal limitation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 23 - Invalidity)
   2011/C 130/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier

      Defendant: Conseil des ministres

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Validity of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37) — Gender used as a determining factor in the assessment of risk and in the calculation of insurance premiums and benefits on the basis of relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data — Life assurance contracts — Whether a difference in treatment is permissible and justified

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services is invalid with effect from 21 December 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-291/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 15 June 2015 — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 15 June 2015 — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-291/15)
   (2016/C 098/21)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EURO 2004. Hungary Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Question referred

   Must Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 be interpreted as precluding a practice of a Member State whereby the customs value is determined on the basis of the ‘transaction value of similar goods’ if it is considered that the declared transaction value, in comparison with the statistical average of the purchase prices verified in the context of the importation of similar goods, is unreasonably low and, consequently, incorrect, despite the fact that the customs authority does not refute or call into question the authenticity of the invoice or the bank transfer certificate produced in order to establish the price actually paid for the imported goods, without the importer having submitted additional evidence to demonstrate the transaction value?


title: Case T-100/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CAMOMILLA — Earlier national figurative mark Camomilla — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Additional evidence brought before the Board of Appeal)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA)
   (Case T-100/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark Camomilla - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Additional evidence brought before the Board of Appeal))
   (2015/C 279/40)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia, M. Franzoni and G. Rubino, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and M. Mussi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (case R 1616/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between CMT — Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) and Camomilla SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 29 November 2012 (case R 1616/2011-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl).

               3.

               Orders CAMOMILLA SpA to pay its own cost.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-326/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/7

         Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-326/04)
   (2004/C 239/11)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and E. Tserepa-Lacombe, members of the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 (1) implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2)

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementing the directive in national law expired on 19 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 180 of 19.7.2000, p. 22.


title: Case T-342/08: Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Batchelor v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/41

         Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Batchelor v Commission
   (Case T-342/08)
   (2008/C 272/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister and D. Reymond, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied negative decision deemed, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Access Regulation, to have been made by the European Commission on 11 June 2008, the express negative decision SG/E/3/HP/cr D(2008)5545, made by the Commission on 3 July 2008, and the express negative decision SG/E/3/EV/psi D(2008)6636, made by the Commission on 7 August 2008, relating to a request for access to documents presented pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay its own costs and the applicant's costs in relation to these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application for annulment, pursuant to Article 230(4), is brought against the Commission's implied negative decision of 11 June 2008 and express negative decisions, SG/E/3/HP/cr D(2008)5545 of 3 July 2008 and SG/E/3/EV/psi D(2008)6636 of 7 August 2008, made pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) (‘the Access Regulation’) by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request for access to documents the Commission sent to, and received from, the Belgian authorities, relating to the notification of measures taken under Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (2), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (3).
   The applicant claims that the Commission's failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for denying access to the documents requested, amounts to a violation of Article 253 EC and Article 8(1) of the Access Regulation and that, consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as envisaged in Article 230(2) EC.
   The applicant further submits that, in wrongly relying on the permissible exceptions for denying access to the documents requested, the Commission has violated Article 255 EC and Articles 1(a), 2(1) and (3), 4(1) to (6) of the Access Regulation and that, consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of the Treaty and of any rule of law relating to its application, as envisaged in Article 230(2) EC.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.

      (3)  OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica presso la Pretura Circondariale di Torino, Italy, and from the Pretura Circondariale di Torino): Criminal proceedings against X (Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment - Definition of worker - Eye and eyesight tests - Definition of workstation for the purposes of Articles 4 and 5 - Extent of the obligations laid down in Article 4 and 5)

text:
No C 54/4               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
     products listed in the Annex to Council Regulation                     Magistrate's Court, Turin ) and from the Pretura
     (EEC) No 383S/90 of 20 December 1990 amending                          Circondariale di Torino itself for a preliminary ruling in
     Regulations (EEC) No 3831 /90, (EEC) No 3832/90                        the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
     and (EEC) No 3833/90 in respect of the system of                       X — on the interpretation of Council Directive 90/270/
     generalized tariff preferences applied to certain                      EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
     products originating in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador                     requirements for work with display screen equipment
     and Peru, does not apply to imports of preserved tuna                  ( fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16
     in olive oil from Spain .                                              ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ) ( OJ No L 156 , 21 . 6 . 1990,
                                                                            p. 14 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of : J. C.
2 . It is for the national court to establish whether the                   Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the
     conditions laid down in Article 5 (2) of Council                       Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M.
      Regulation (EEC) No 1679/79 on the post-clearance                     Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
     recovery of import duties which have not been                          General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on
     required of the person liable for payment on goods                     12 December 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows :
     entered for a customs procedure involving the
      obligation to pay such duties are fulfilled. In order to
     determine whether or not the error committed by the                    1 . Article 9 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of
     authorities could reasonably have been detected by the                       29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
     person liable it is appropriate to take account, in                          requirements for work with display screen equipment
     particular, of the nature of the error, the professional                     (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      experience of the trader concerned and the degree of                        Article 16 (1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC) must be
      care exercised by him. The relevant factors to be taken                     interpreted as meaning that the regular eye tests for
      into account include the complexity of the legislation,                     which it provides are to be carried out on all workers
      the terms in which the purpose of the provisions at                         to whom the Directive applies and Article 9 (2) is to
      issue is expressed, recurrence of the error in question                     be interpreted as meaning that workers are entitled to
      in other measures of the Member State concerned and                         an ophthalmological examination in all cases where
     any divergence of views between the Member States as                         the eye and eyesight test carried out pursuant to
      to the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions.                    Article 9 (1 ) shows that this it necessary.
(') OJ No C 199 , 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
     OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , and                                        2 . On a proper construction of Articles 4 and 5 of
     OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .                                                Directive 90/270/E.EC, the obligations they impose
                                                                                apply to all workstations as defined in Article 2 (b),
                                                                                even if they are not used by workers as defined in
                                                                                Article 2 (c), and workstations must be adapted to
                                                                                comply with all the minimum requirements laid down
                                                                                in the Annex .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                           ( Fifth Chamber )
                      of 12 December 1996
in Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 ( references for a
preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica
presso la Pretura Circondariale di Torino, Italy, and from
the Pretura Circondariale di Torino ): Criminal proceedings                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              against X ( 1 )                                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
(Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health                                             of 12 December 1996
requirements for work with display screen equipment —
Definition of worker — Eye and eyesight tests —                             in Case C-142/95 P Associazione Agricoltori della
Definition of workstation for the purposes of Articles 4                    Provincia di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the
and 5 — Extent of the obligations laid down in Article 4                                  European Communities and Others (')
                                  and 5)                                     (Appeal — Natural or legal persons — Act of direct and
                              ( 97/C 54/06 )                                                    individual concern to them)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/07 )
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 : references to the
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Procura della Repubblica ( Office of the Public Prosecutor )                 In Case C-142/95 P: Associazione Agricoltori della
to     the    Pretura     Circondariale       di   Torino     ( District     Provincia di Rovigo, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori


title: Case T-317/09: Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Concord Power Nordal v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/66

         Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Concord Power Nordal v Commission
   (Case T-317/09)
   2009/C 267/120
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Concord Power Nordal GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. von Hammerstein, C.-S. Schweer and C. Wünschmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2009 (ref: CAB D(2009)) in so far as it concerns the gas pipeline project Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung (‘OPAL’);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, which is responsible for the NORDAL gas pipeline project, objects to a letter from the Commission to the German energy regulatory authority, the Bundesnetzagentur, of 12 June 2009 in which the Commission requests the Bundesnetzagentur to make certain amendments to the exemption granted in respect of OPAL pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC. (1) The applicant complains that the Commission failed to object fundamentally to the exemption from regulation granted in respect of some of OPAL’s transportation capacity to the Czech Republic.
   In support of its claim, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.
   First, the applicant complains that OPAL does not satisfy the requirements of Article 22(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC, as it is not an interconnector, does not enhance competition or security of supply, does not amount to an extraordinary investment risk and infringes the unbundling requirement. In that respect, it is also submitted that the exemption will be detrimental to competition and to the effective functioning of the internal market and of the regulated system.
   Second, the applicant submits that the conditions attached to the grant of the exemption are not capable of preventing harm to competition, or enforceable.
   Further, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 82 EC, of its fundamental rights (namely the freedom of enterprise and of ownership) and of the principle of Community loyalty.

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


title: Case T-474/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 –GGP Italy v Commission (Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers — Directive 2006/42/EC — Safeguard clause — National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a lawn mower — Requirements concerning protective devices — Successive versions of a harmonised standard — Legal certainty — Commission Decision declaring the measure justified — Error of law)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 –GGP Italy v Commission
   (Case T-474/15) (1)

   ((Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers - Directive 2006/42/EC - Safeguard clause - National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a lawn mower - Requirements concerning protective devices - Successive versions of a harmonised standard - Legal certainty - Commission Decision declaring the measure justified - Error of law))
   (2017/C 078/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) (Castelfranco Veneto, Italy) (represented by: A. Villani, L. D’Amario and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by G. Braga da Cruz and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by G. Braga da Cruz and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 on a measure taken by Latvia in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to prohibit the placing on the market of a lawn mower manufactured by GGP Italy SpA (OJ 2015 L 147, p. 22).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 on a measure taken by Latvia in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to prohibit the placing on the market of a lawnmower manufactured by GGP Italy SpA;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) in the present proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case T-393/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark NaViKey — Earlier Community word mark NAVI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Breach of the duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey)
   (Case T-393/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NaViKey - Earlier Community word mark NAVI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Breach of the duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 347/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nokia Corp. (Espoo, Finland) (represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2009 (Case R 1143/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nokia Corp. and NEC Display Solutions Europe GMbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-18/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council (Applications for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Ban on import and sale — Exception in favour of Inuit communities — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — Prima facie case — No urgency)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/41

      Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-18/10 R)
      (Applications for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Ban on import and sale - Exception in favour of Inuit communities - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - Prima facie case - No urgency)
      (2010/C 161/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada); Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada); Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada); Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq); David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada); Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada); Efstathios Andreas Agathos (Athens, Greece); Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada); Ta Ma Su Seal Products (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada); Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs, Inc (Catalina, Canada); GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway); Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland (ICC) (Nuuk, Greenland, Denmark); Johannes Egede (Nuuk); and Kalaallit Numaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk) (represented by: J. Bouckaert, M. van der Woude and H. Viaene, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for suspension of the operation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The opinion of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union of 18 February 2009 on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seal products, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities (COM(2008) 469 final of 23 July 2008), set out in Annex A-4 to the application for interim measures, and the extract from that opinion contained in paragraph 16 of that application are removed from the file in Case T-18/10 R.

                  2.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  3.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-635/11: Action brought on 9 December 2011 — Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/41

         Action brought on 9 December 2011 — Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki v Commission
   (Case T-635/11)
   2012/C 32/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (Maroussi Attikis, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, lawyers, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25);

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision to the extent it applies to the applicant; or

               —

               Further in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU in determining that the measure at stake constituted an aid measure by:

                           —

                           identifying that the applicant benefited from an economic advantage in the form of a ‘fiscal discrimination’ in the amount of Euro 7,20 per Ticket;

                           —

                           finding that the measure involved forgone State resources;

                           —

                           considering that the measure was selective in favour of the applicant; and

                           —

                           concluding that the measure distorted competition and had an effect on trade between Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s procedural right of defence by completely ignoring the applicant’s Observations and Additional Comments submitted by the applicant in the exercise of its procedural rights following the Opening Decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide adequate reasoning to enable the applicant to understand and this Court to review the reasoning based on which it found that the applicant benefited from a selective advantage, that any such advantage involved forgone State revenues and would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the contested decision orders recovery of amounts from the applicant it violates:

                           —

                           Article 14(1), first sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), pursuant to which recovery shall relate to the aid received by the beneficiary, since the defendant failed to correctly quantify in the contested decision the amount of aid that the applicant may have received; and

                           —

                           Article 14(1), second sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since recovery in this case infringes general principles of EU law, namely: the principle of legitimate expectations; the principle of legal certainty; and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)


title: Joined Cases C-42/10, C-45/10 and C-57/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium)) — Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW (C-42/10, C-45/10 and C-57/10), Marc Janssens (C-42/10 and C-45/10) v Belgische Staat (Veterinary and zootechnical sector — Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 — Animal health conditions applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals — Decision 2003/803/EC — Model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium)) — Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW (C-42/10, C-45/10 and C-57/10), Marc Janssens (C-42/10 and C-45/10) v Belgische Staat
   (Joined Cases C-42/10, C-45/10 and C-57/10) (1)

   (Veterinary and zootechnical sector - Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 - Animal health conditions applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals - Decision 2003/803/EC - Model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets)
   2011/C 179/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW, Marc Janssens (C-42/10, C-45/10 and C-57/10), Marc Janssens (C-42/10 and C-45/10)

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Intervening party: Luk Vangheluwe (C-42/10)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (OJ 2003 L 146, p. 1) and of Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets (OJ 2003 L 312, p. 1) — National provisions requiring the inclusion in every passport of a unique number consisting of 13 characters (ISO code, followed by the identification number of the distributor and a serial number) — Means of proof of identification and registration of dogs — Data relating to the owner of the animal

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC and the articles of and annexes to Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which lays down a numbering system for pet passports comprising a unique number consisting of the two-letter ISO code for the Member State concerned followed by the identification number of the authorised distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits, provided that that legislation guarantees the uniqueness of that identification number.

               2.

               Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 and the articles of and annexes to Decision 2003/803 must be interpreted as:

                           —

                           not precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a pet passport is used not only as a travel document pursuant to European Union legislation but also as proof of identification and registration of dogs at a national level,

                           —

                           precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which only one field is available in the pet passport for entry of the identity and address of the owner of the animal and to which any later amendments are made by affixing self-adhesive stickers.

               3.

               National provisions, such as those in the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the pet passport and relating to its use as proof of identification and registration of dogs, and to the use of self-adhesive stickers to amend the identity details of the owner and the animal, on the one hand, and to those relating to the determination of a unique number for cats and ferrets, on the other, do not constitute technical standards within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, which, in accordance with Article 8 thereof, must be communicated in advance to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Kish Glass Company Limited against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-65/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 210/ 17
applicant to the Translation Service of that institution and,          ( Netherlands ), represented by Martijn van Empel, of the
second, for her immediate reassignment to the post which               Amsterdam Bar, and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar,
she occupied at the Office for Official Publications of the            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
European Communities — the President of the Court of                   of Marc Loesch , 11 rue Goethe, v . Commission of
First Instance made an order on 22 April 1 996 , the operative         the European Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of operation of Commission
                                                                       Decision 95/55 1 /EC of 29 November 1995 relating to a
1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                       ( IV.34.179 , 34.202 , 216 — Stichting Certificatie
2,   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie Nederlandse
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijven, OJ No L 312 , 1995 , p . 79 ), and for
                                                                       access to the file opened in the context of that proceeding —
                                                                       the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                       4 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                       1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       2,   the costs are reserved.
                        of 3 June 1996
in Case T-41 /96 R Bayer AG v. Commission of the
                    European Communities
                         ( 96/C 210/43 )
               (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Kish Glass Company
                                                                       Limited against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In Case T-41 /96 R : Bayer AG, with its registered office at
Leverkusen ( Germany ), represented by Joachim Sedemund ,                                       ( Case T-65 /96 )
of .the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in                                               ( 96/C 210/45 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May , 31
Grand-rue, against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Communities ( Agents : Wouter Wils and Klaus Wiedner ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 2 of
the Commission Decision of 10 January 199 6 relating                   An action against the Commission of the European
to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
(IV/34.279/F3 : Adalat ) — the President of the Court of First         Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1996 by
Instance made an order on 3 June 1 996 , the operative part of         Kish Glass Company Limited, represented by Maurice
which is as follows :                                                   Byrne, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 , rue
                                                                       Mathias Hardt .
 1 , operation of Article 2 of the decision is suspended;
2,   costs are reserved.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission dated 2 1 February
                                                                            1996 in Case IV/34.193~Kish Glass,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                        of 4 June 1996                                  The applicant, an Irish undertaking with limited liability,
 in      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting     Certificatie      which supplies glass products to all levels of trade ,
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf         and      Federatie      Nederlandse        challenges the Commission's refusal to take any action in
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven v. Commission of the European                    relation to its complaint concerning its supplier's abuse of a
                           Communities                                  dominant position . The abuse consisted in applying
                          ( 96/C 210/44 )                               dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with trading
                                                                        parties other than the applicant and restricting the supply of
                                                                        float glass to the applicant in 1987.
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the contested decision should be
 In      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting      Certificatie     annulled on the following grounds :
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf,         established      at     Culemborg
 ( Netherlands )       and         Federatie         Nederlandse        — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven,         established     at Culemborg                of the rights of the defence . The Commission did not give
 ---pagebreak--- 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-688/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others
   (Case C-688/15)
   (2016/C 106/20)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants in cassation: Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others

      Other parties: AB bankas ‘Snoras’, in liquidation; VĮ ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’; AB ‘Šiaulių bankas’, successor to the rights and obligations of AB bankas ‘FINASTA’

               1.

               Is the Deposit Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that funds debited with the persons’ consent or transferred or paid by those persons themselves into an account opened in the name of a credit institution held at another credit institution may be regarded as a deposit under that directive?

               2.

               Are Articles 7(1) and 8(3) of the Deposit Directive, taken together, to be understood as meaning that a deposit insurance payment up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) must be made to every person whose claim can be established before the date on which the determination or ruling referred to in Article 1(3)(i) and (ii) of the Deposit Directive is adopted?

               3.

               For the purposes of the Deposit Directive, is the definition of a ‘normal banking transaction’ relevant for the interpretation of the concept of a deposit as a credit balance deriving from banking transactions? Is that definition also to be taken into account when interpreting the concept of a deposit in national legal measures which have implemented the Deposit Directive?

               4.

               If the third question is answered in the affirmative, how is the concept of a normal banking transaction used in Article 1(1) of the Deposit Directive to be understood and interpreted:

                           (a)

                           what banking transactions should be regarded as normal or what criteria should be the basis for determining whether a specific banking transaction is a normal one?

                           (b)

                           is the concept of a normal banking transaction to be assessed having regard to the objective of the banking transactions performed or to the parties between whom such banking transactions are carried out?

                           (c)

                           is the concept, used in the Deposit Directive, of a deposit as a credit balance deriving from normal banking transactions to be interpreted as covering only cases where all the transactions resulting in the creation of such a balance are regarded as normal?

               5.

               Where funds fall outside the definition of a deposit under the Deposit Directive but the Member State has chosen to implement the Deposit Directive and the Investor Directive (2) in national law in such a way that funds to which the depositor has claims arising from a credit institution’s obligation to provide investment services are also regarded as a deposit, can the cover for deposits be applied only after it has been determined that in a specific case the credit institution acted as an investment firm and funds were transferred to it to carry out investment business/activities, within the meaning of the Investor Directive and MiFID? (3)

      (1)  Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).

      (2)  Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22).

      (3)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-560/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/11

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-560/08)
   (2009/C 55/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations,

                           —

                           in accordance with Article 2(1), Article 3(1) and (2) as the case may be, Article 4 and Article 5 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading the M-501 road corresponding to sections 1, 2 and 4; in accordance with Article 6(2) and Article 8 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading the M-501 road corresponding to sections 2 and 4; and in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 85/337/EEC in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading the M-501 road corresponding to sections 1, 2 and 4;

                           —

                           in accordance with Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, with respect to the separate projects for widening and/or upgrading the M-501 road corresponding to sections 1, 2 and 4 of the special protection area for birds ES 0000056 ‘Encinares del río Alberche y río Cofio’;

                           —

                           in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC, interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and the obligations resulting from Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of the directive, with respect to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading the M-501 road corresponding to section 1 as regards the site proposed as a site of Community importance ES 3110005 ‘Cuenca del río Guadarrama’, and sections 2 and 4 regarding the proposed site of Community interest ES 3110007 ‘Cuenca de los ríos Alberche y Cofio’;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action brought by the Commission relates to the projects approved or, as the case may be, implemented by the Spanish authorities with respect to the widening and/or upgrading of the local M-501 road (Community of Madrid). The Commission takes the view that the Kingdom of Spain has failed, with respect to those projects, to fulfil its obligations under Directive 85/337, in its original or amended version, and Directive 92/43, as interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and of 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05.

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-515/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/72

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)
   (Case T-515/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/159
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case 1967/2010-2) concerning an application for the registration of the word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Delphi Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-617/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc. and Nike Retail B.V.

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc. and Nike Retail B.V.
   (Case C-617/15)
   (2016/C 038/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

      Defendants: Nike Inc., Nike Retail B.V.

      Question referred

   Under which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the European Union to be considered as an ‘establishment’ of that undertaking within the meaning of Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-483/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention — Applicable law — Cross-border merger — Directive 78/855/EEC — Directive 2005/56/EC — Merger by acquisition — Protection of creditors — Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/14

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group
      (Case C-483/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention - Applicable law - Cross-border merger - Directive 78/855/EEC - Directive 2005/56/EC - Merger by acquisition - Protection of creditors - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company))
      (2016/C 211/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: KA Finanz AG

         Defendant: Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that:

                              —

                              the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger;

                              —

                              the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company.

                  2.

                  Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-345/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2017 — Sergejs Buivids

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2017 — Sergejs Buivids
   (Case C-345/17)
   (2017/C 277/39)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sergejs Buivids

      Other party to the proceedings: Datu valsts inspekcija

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do activities such as those at issue in the present case, that is to say, the recording, in a police station, of police officers carrying out procedural measures and publication of the video on the Internet site www.youtube.com, fall within the scope of Directive 95/46? (1)

               2.

               Must Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that those activities may be regarded as the processing of personal data for journalistic purposes, within the meaning of Article 9 of that directive?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-172/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Article 31 of the EEA Agreement — Corporation tax — Groups of companies — Group relief — Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary — Conditions — Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-172/13) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Group relief - Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary - Conditions - Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive))
      (2015/C 107/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, S. Brighouse and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Ewart QC and S. Ford, Barrister)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

                  3)

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-485/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by Universal Protein Supplements Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2016 in Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: UNIVERSAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS v EUIPO — H YOUNG HOLDINGS (ANIMAL)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/4

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by Universal Protein Supplements Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2016 in Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: UNIVERSAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS v EUIPO — H YOUNG HOLDINGS (ANIMAL)
   (Case C-485/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), H Young Holdings plc
   By order of 31 January 2017 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case F-131/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Steinmetz v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/86

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Steinmetz v Commission
   (Case F-131/06)
   (2006/C 326/174)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Robert Steinmetz (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 21 February 2006 not to give full effect to an agreement binding on the parties;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant token compensation of EUR 1 for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant concluded an agreement with the Commission intended to bring to an end by amicable settlement the dispute brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-155/05 (1).
   The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to give full effect to the terms of the agreement.
   In support of his action, he alleges in particular breach by the Commission of the principle of legality, the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.2006, p. 26.


title: Case C-464/11: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 8 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione di Bagheria — Italy) — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione, Maria Savona and Fabio Savona

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 8 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione di Bagheria — Italy) — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione, Maria Savona and Fabio Savona
   (Case C-464/11) (1)

   2013/C 108/38
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.