title: Case T-226/14: Action brought on 15 April 2014 — Commission v McCarron Poultry

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/34

         Action brought on 15 April 2014 — Commission v McCarron Poultry
   (Case T-226/14)
   2014/C 212/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Van der Hout, lawyer, and L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, agents)

      Defendant: McCarron Poultry Ltd (Killacorn Emyvale, Ireland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the European Commission the sum due of EUR 9 76  663,34, corresponding to the principal amount of EUR 9 00  662,25 plus the amount of EUR 76  001,09 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 2,50 % for the period between 01.12.2010 and 15.04.2014;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 61,690 per day by way of interest from 16.04.2014 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present application is presented under Article 272 TFEU seeking a decision of the General Court ordering the defendant to reimburse the European Commission the principal amount of EUR 9 00  662,25, plus interest, in relation to contract No NNE5/1999/20229 for ‘Community Activities in the Field of the specific programme for RTD and demonstration on “Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development — Part B: Energy program”’.
   In support of its application, the European Commission raises a single plea in law: the Commission contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse to the Commission the difference between the Union's financial contribution due to defendant and the total amount of funding already received by it. The financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of advance and intermediate payments. The Commission contends therefore that, under the contract, the defendant is liable for the sum due.


title: Case T-49/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/20

         Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission
   (Case T-49/12)
   2012/C 109/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Lafarge (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet and C. Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Commission decision C(2011) 8890 of 25 November 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case 39520 — Cement and related products;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      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 infringement of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) in so far as the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 24(1)(d) thereof by requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission went beyond what was appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued — by adopting a decision requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise — whereas, in view of the extent of the information requested, such confirmation was impossible, and the Commission could have taken more appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s response could provide a reliable basis for assessing whether the undertakings’ conduct was compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, in that the contested decision effectively requires the applicant to withdraw all the reservations qualifying its response, whereas, in view of the complexity of the information requested, it had to weigh a large number of issues.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration in that the contested decision was taken without regard being had to the specific aspects of the case raised by the applicant in its response and without the applicant’s being heard first.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 31 May 1995 in Case C-400/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Faglige Voldgiftsret (Denmark)): Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark v. Dansk Industri (Equal pay for men and women)

text:
8 . 7 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 174/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . The principle of equal pay set out in Article 119 of the
                       of 31 May 1995                                     Treaty and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/EEC means
                                                                          that the mere finding that in a piece-work pay scheme
in Case C-400/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                the average pay of a group of workers consisting
the Faglige Voldgiftsret ( Denmark )): Specialarbejderfor                predominantly of men carrying out another type of
           bundet i Danmark v. Dansk Industri (')
                                                                          work to which equal value is attributed does not suffice
               (Equal pay for men and women)                              to establish that there is discrimination with regard to
                         (9 SIC 174/01 )                                  pay. However, where in a piece-work pay scheme in
                                                                          which individual pay consists of a variable element
                                                                          depending on each worker 's output and a fixed element
                (Language of the case: Danish)                            differing according to the group of workers concerned it
                                                                          is not possible to identify the factors which determined
                                                                          the rates or units of measurement used to calculate the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              variable element in the pay, the employer may have to
          published in the European Court Reports)                        bear the burden ofproving that the differences found are
                                                                          not due to sex discrimination .
In Case C-400/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Faglige Voldgiftsret ( Denmark ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark and                  3 . For the purposes of the comparison to be made between
Dansk Industri, formerly Industriens Arbejdsgivere, acting
                                                                          the average pay of two groups of workers paid by the
for Royal Copenhagen A/S — on the interpretation of                       piece, the national court must satisfy itself that the two
Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive
                                                                          groups each encompass all the workers who , taking
75/ 1 17/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of                  account ofa set offactors such as the nature of the work ,
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
                                                                          the training requirements and the working conditions,
the principle of equal pay for men and women ( 2 ), the Court,            can be considered to be in a comparable situation and
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A.                  that they cover a relatively large number of workers
Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gulmann ( Presidents of
                                                                          ensuring that the differences are not due to purely
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris , J. C. Moitinho
                                                                          fortuitous or short-term factors or to differences in the
de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward , J. - P. Puissochet,          individual output of the workers concerned.
G. Hirsch and L. Sevon , Judges ; Advocate-General : P. Leger;
Registrar : H. von Holstein , Deputy Registrar, gave a
judgment on 31 May 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
                                                                      4 . When ascertaining whether the principle of equal pay
 1 . Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive                   has been observed, it is for the national court to decide
      75/1 17/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation                whether, in the light of circumstances such as, first, the
     of the laws of the Member States relating to the                     fact that the work done by one of the groups of workers
     application of the principle of equal pay for men and                in question involves machinery and requires in
     women apply to piece-work pay schemes in which pay                   particular muscular strength whereas that done by the
     depends entirely or in large measure on the individual               other group is manual work requiring in particular
     output of each worker.                                               dexterity and, secondly, the fact that there are
 ---pagebreak--- No C 174/2               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8 . 7 . 95
      differences between the work of the two groups with                        or can a claim for breach of official duty arise only from
      regard to paid breaks, freedom to organize one 's own                      paragraph 839 of the German Civil Code , in
      work and work-related inconveniences, the two types of                     conjunction with Article 34 of the Grundgesetz ( Basic
      work are of equal value or whether those circumstances                     Law )?
      may be considered to be objective factors unrelated to
      any discrimination on grounds of sex which are such as              (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
      to justify any pay differentials.
5 . The principle of equal pay for men and women also
      applies where the elements of the pay are determined by
      collective bargaining or by negotiation at local level.
      However, the national court may take that fact into                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      account in its assessment of whether differences                    Tributario de Segunda Instancia by an order of
      beteween the average pay of two groups of workers are               29 November 1994 in the case of Pascoal &c Filhos SA
      due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination                                  against Fazenda Publica
      on grounds of sex.                                                                              ( Case C-97/95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/03 )
(') OJ No C 287, 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 7 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Tribunal
                                                                          Tributario de Segunda Instancia ( Customs Court of Second
                                                                          Instance ), Lisbon, of 29 November 1995 , which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 27 March 19 95 , for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Pascoal & Filhos SA and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches                 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of
14 February 1995 in the case of Bruna-Alessandra Ziichner                 ( a ) Does the responsibility of the exporter, referred to in
         v. Handelskrankenkasse ( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen                            Article 10 ( 1 ) of Annex II to Council Decision
                            ( Case C-77/95 )                                      86/283/EEC (') of 30 June 1986 , extend to customs
                              ( 95/C 174/02 )
                                                                                duties resulting from the cancellation of movement
                                                                                certificates  EUR.l        issued  on  the basis    of false
                                                                                information as to the origin of the goods ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hanseatisches                     ( b ) ' What is the meaning and scope of the modal adverb
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Erster Zivilsenat ( Higher                          ' also ' used in the second subparagraph of
Regional Court, Bremen — First Civil Senate ) of                                  Article 201 ( 3 ) of the Community Customs Code ( 2 ), in
14 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       particular where the national customs law provides
on 15 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        that responsibility for payment of the duties due in
Bruna-Alessandra           Ziichner      v.   Handelskrankenkasse
                                                                                respect of the goods involved in the infringement
( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen on the following questions :                               attaches exclusively to the person who committed the
                                                                                customs infringement ?
1 . Does the plaintiff, as the wife of the insured person who
      is in need of care, belong to the working population                (c ) May the rule in the judgment of the Court of Justice of
      within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Directive                        the European Communities of 7 December 1993 in
      79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 f 1 )?                                         Case C-12/92 (') E. Huygen, published at pages 5 and 6
                                                                                of Proceedings of the Court of Justice No 35/93 ,
2 . Although paragraph 37 ( 3 ) of the SGB, Book V, is                            although relating to the Free Trade Agreement between
      formulated in neutral terms with regard to sex, does it                     the EEC and Austria, apply to the circumstances of this
      discriminate, within the meaning of the Directive,                          case, which concerns the interpretation and application
      against the plaintiff as a woman ?                                          of Council Decision 86/283/EEC ?
3 . Does the plaintiff, who is not insured by the defendant,              ( d ) What is the meaning, purport and scope of the results of
      have direct entitlement, or does her husband , as the                       the verification referred to by Article 25 ( 3 ) of Annex II
                                                                                to Decision 86/283/EEC ?
      insured person, alone have direct entitlement ?
                                                                          ( e ) May a procedure for post-clearance recovery in the
4 . Is the defendant itself liable , as an organ of the State
                                                                                Member State of importation be commenced and
      ( substitute sickness insurance fund )? If not, who is liable
      in its stead ?
                                                                                completed before the results of the verification are
                                                                                forwarded by the customs authorities in the exporting
                                                                                country to the customs authorities in the importing
5 . Does a claim for breach of official duty, irrespective of                     country and without the importer being aware of the
      fault, exist under the law of the European Communities,                     results of the verification ?


title: Case T-177/05: Action brought on 6 May 2005 by the Republic of Finland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/30

         Action brought on 6 May 2005 by the Republic of Finland against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-177/05)
   (2005/C 155/57)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 2005 by the Republic of Finland, represented by Tuula Pynnä, Agent, and Alice Guimaraes-Purokoski, Deputy Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decision contained in the letter of the Director-General of the Commission's Budget Directorate-General to Finland's Permanent Representative to the European Union dated 28 February 2005 and the letter of the Director-General of the Commission's Budget Directorate-General to Finland's Permanent Representative to the European Union dated 25 April 2005 confirming that decision, by which the Commission refused to enter into negotiations with Finland on the conditional payment demanded by the Commission from Finland, in the infringement proceedings 2003/2180 brought pursuant to Article 226 EC, of retroactive customs duties and interest for late payment accrued thereon up to the date of payment;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Director-General of the Commission's Budget Directorate-General Mr Romero sent Finland's Permanent Representative to the European Union a letter dated 28 February 2005. In the letter the Commission states that it refuses to enter into negotiations on the conditional payment demanded by the Commission from Finland on the basis of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, (1) in the infringement proceedings 2003/2180 brought pursuant to Article 226 EC, of retroactive customs duties and interest for late payment accrued thereon up to the date of payment. The Commission confirmed that decision in the letter of the Director-General of the Commission's Budget Directorate-General to Finland's Permanent Representative to the European Union dated 25 April 2005.
   Finland considers that in making the contested decision the Commission infringed the EC Treaty or rules of law relating to its application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 230 EC

               —

               by refusing, contrary to the principle of loyal cooperation under Article 10 EC and to the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning conditional payment, to enter into negotiations on the conditional payment demanded by the Commission from Finland on the basis of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, in the infringement proceedings 2003/2180, of retroactive customs duties and interest for late payment accrued thereon up to the date of payment, and

               —

               by not stating reasons for its refusal, contrary to Article 253 EC.

         The refusal of negotiations has the result that Finland cannot pay conditionally the retroactive customs duties and interest for late payment demanded by the Commission from Finland on the basis of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 in the infringement proceedings 2003/2180, at the same time ensuring that the points of law at issue in the infringement proceedings 2003/2180 are brought before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  Council Rgulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases C-485/93 and C-486/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Diikitiko Protodikio of Rhodes and the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio of Rhodes): Maria Simitzi v. Dimos Kos (Free movement of goods - Tax regime of the Dodecanese - Charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty - Temporal effects of a preliminary ruling)

text:
28 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 286/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                                     ( Fifth Chamber )
                     of 14 September 1995                                                 of 14 September 1995
in Case C-3 96/93 P: Helmut Henrichs v. Commission of the             in Joined Cases C-485/93 and C-486/93 (references for
                   European Communities (')                           a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio of Rhodes and the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio
(Appeal — Article 4 (4) and (6) of Regulation (Euratom,
ECSC, EEC) No 2274/87 — Determination of the                                  of Rhodes ): Maria Simitzi v. Dimos Kos C )
allowance provided for in Article 4 (1) — Exclusion from              (Free movement ofgoods — Tax regime of the Dodecanese
the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for Officials of the              — Charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty —
                    European Communities)                                       Temporal effects of a preliminary ruling)
                          ( 95/C 286/01 )                                                      ( 95/C 286/02 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-396/93 P: Helmut Henrichs, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European                 In Joined Cases C-485/93 and C-486/93 : references to
Communities, residing in Sankt Augustin ( Germany ),                  the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
represented by Frank Montag, of the Brussels Bar — appeal             by the Monomeles Diikitiko Protodikio ( Single-Judge
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the            Administrative Court of First Instance ) of Rhodes and the
European Communities (Third Chamber ) of 24 June 1993                 Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio (Three-Judge Administrative
in Case T-92/91 , Henrichs v.             Commission [ 1993 ]         Court of First Instance ) of Rhodes for a preliminary ruling in
ECR 11-611 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the             the proceedings pending before those courts between Maria
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                Simitzi and Dimos Kos on the interpretation of the EEC
European Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, Legal               Treaty, in particular Articles 9 , 12, 13,16 and 95 , and on the
Adviser, assisted by Bertrand Wägenbaur, of the Brussels              interpretation of Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive
Bar ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of C.                   ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho            laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón,              Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                  assessment ( OJ 1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             Chamber ), composed of C. Gulmann ( President of
 14 September 1995 , in which it:                                     Chamber ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                      ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                            Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Registrar, has
                                                                      given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in which it
                                                                      rules :
2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
( i ) OJ No C 274, 12 . 10 . 1993 .                                    1 . an ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods
                                                                           imported from another Member State by reason of their
                                                                           entry into a region of the first Member State 's territory
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
    constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a              expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural
    customs duty on imports, notwithstanding the fact that             Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee
    it is also levied on goods entering that region from               Section ( OJ 1993 L 301 , p. 13 ) is void in part — the Court
    another part of the same State 's territory, and                   ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
    notwithstanding the fact that an ad valorem charge is              Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
    also levied on goods exported from the region in                   Edward and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
    question;                                                          Colomer, Advocate-General ; M. von Holstein , Deputy
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in
                                                                       which it :
2 . an ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods
    exported to another Member State by reason of their
    leaving a region of the first Member State 's territory            1 . dismisses the application;
    constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a
    customs duty on exports, notwithstanding the fact that
    it is also levied on goods leaving that region for another         2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    part of the territory of the same State;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
3 . a national rule under which there is levied a charge
    having an effect equivalent to a customs duty is not
    compatible with Article 9 et seq . of the EEC Treaty;
4 . ad valorem charges levied by a Member State on goods
    entering a region of its territory solely from other
    regions of the same State and on goods despatched from             Action brought on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom of
    one region solely to other regions of the same State               Belgium against the Commission of the European
    constitute charges having an effect equivalent to                                             Communities
    customs duties on imports and exports respectively;                                         Case C-271 /95
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/04 )
5 . the provisions of the EEC Treaty relating to charges
    having an effect equivalent to customs duties cannot be
    relied on in support of claims for refunds of sums levied          An action against the Commission of the European
    by way of the contested duty before 1 6 July 1 992, except         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal            European Communities on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom
    proceedings or raised an equivalent claim .                        of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
                                                                       Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
                                                                       Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
(') O J No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 ( ),
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                     of 14 September 1995
in Case C-49/94 : Ireland v. Commission of the European                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          Communities (')
           (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1990)                        — Inapplicability of the legal basis relied on: Article 149(1 )
                                                                            of the 1994 Act of Accession relates only to ancillary
                            ( 95/C 286/03 )
                                                                            rules in the case where a common organization of the
                                                                            market applies by virtue of the Treaty of Accession . This
                 (Language of the case: English)                            means in particular that measures adopted pursuant to
                                                                            Article 149 ( 1 ) cannot restrict the operation of
                                                                            Article 137(2 ) of the Act of Accession, which introduces
In Case C-49/94 : Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) v.                  the title dealing with agriculture . The contested
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Xavier                      regulation, however, deals essentially not with
Lewis , assisted by John Flandoll, Solicitor) — application                 transitional measures but rather with derogations
for a declaration that Commission Decision 93/659/EC of                     allowing the new Member States to avoid application of
25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts                           the common organization of the market, contrary to
presented by the Member States in respect of the                            Article 137 ( 2 ) of the Act of Accession.


title: Joined Cases C-581/13 P and C 582/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2014  — Intra-Presse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Golden Balls Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Article 8(5) — Word mark GOLDEN BALLS — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR — Relevant public — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 — Intra-Presse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Golden Balls Ltd
   (Joined Cases C-581/13 P and C 582/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Article 8(5) - Word mark GOLDEN BALLS - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR - Relevant public - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2015/C 026/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Intra-Presse (represented by: P. Péters, advocaat, and T. de Haan, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Golden Balls Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union in Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) (T-448/11, EU:T:2013:456) and in Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) (T-437/11, EU:T:2013:441) to the extent that they dismissed the two applications for annulment submitted by Intra-Presse SAS;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeals as to the remainder;

               3.

               Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 June 2011 (Case R 1432/2010-1) and point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1310/2010-1);

               4.

               Orders Intra-Presse SAS, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Golden Balls Ltd to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Action brought on 20 September 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-305/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96             EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 370/ 3
( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn,           however, accepted that the power of initiative of the
C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P.                      Commission can authorize pilot studies and preparatory
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,              action, properly so called .
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
 15 October 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows:           In the present case, the United Kingdom does not accept
                                                                        that the power of initiative justified or would justify the
 1 . The Commission, in exercising its powers under                     Commission in incurring the expenditure in issue . The
      Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty, could adopt the             funding which has been incurred and the further funding
     guidelines for the examination of State aids in the                which is proposed has resulted or would result in
     fisheries sector (OJ No C 313, 1988, p. 21 ), which                expenditure in pursuit of a policy which has already been
      require compliance, not only with criteria pertaining             ' bench tested' under the Youth for Europe programme .
      exclusively to competition policy, but also with those            Further, it is clear that the Commission does not intend to
      applicable in relation to the common fisheries policy,            conduct any proper appraisal of the results of the 'pilot
      even if the Council had not expressly authorized it to do         action' prior to making their proposal for a multiannual
      so .
                                                                        European voluntary service programme. In reality, the 'pilot
                                                                        action' therefore amounts to the launch of the European
                                                                        voluntary service prior to the adoption of the necessary
2 . A Member State, such as the Netherlands, which is                   basic measure .
      subject to the obligation of cooperation under
      Article 93 (1 ) of the Treaty and which has accepted the
      rules laid down in the guidelines must apply those                Furthermore, the decision or decisions are procedurally
      guidelines when deciding on an application for aid for            defective in that they are not supported by adequate
      the construction of a fishing vessel intended to form             reasoning.
      part of one of the Community fleets, irrespective of the
      area in which it fishes.
                                                                         (') Commission press release of 10 July 1996 ( IP/96/632 )
 (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              announcing grants for European voluntary service projects .
 Action brought on 20 September 1996 by the United                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des
 Kingdom against the Commission of the European                          Affaires de Securite Sociale d'Evry, by judgment of that
                              Communities                                court of 28 May 1996, in the case of Oufdia Djabali v.
                           ( Case C-305/96 )                                       Caisse d'Allocations Familiales de l'Essonne
                             ( 96/C 370/05 )                                                       Case C-314/96 )
                                                                                96/C 370/06 )
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 20 September 1996 by the                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 United Kingdom, represented by Mr John E. Collins,                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal des
 Assistant Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr           Affaires de Securite Sociale d'Evry ( Social Security Court,
  Derrick Wyatt, QC, and Ms Helen Davies, Barrister, of the              Evry ) of 28 May 1996 , which was received at the Court
  English Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              Registry on 26 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
  the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt.                           the case of Ourdia Djabali v. Caisse d'Allocations
                                                                         Familiales de l'Essonne on the following question :
  The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision *Or
  decisions referred to in or comprised in the press release of
  the Commission of 10 July 1996 0 ) without prejudice to                Does Article 39 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78
  the competence of the Court of Justice to declare the                   of 26 September 1978 concerning the conclusion of the
  decision or decisions in issue of definitive effect.                    Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and the People's
                                                                         Democratic Republic of Algeria ( ] ) apply to Mrs Djabali in
                                                                          regard to the award of a disabled adults' allowance where
  The applicant asks for costs against the Commission                     she has never been employed but will be entitled, possibly
  pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .                      in December 1997, to a pension in her capacity as a 'non
                                                                          working mother' ( mere au foyer )?
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          (!) OJNoL263 , 27. 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
  All Community expenditure must be based on both a
  budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is,


title: Case C-365/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 — Article 16 — Calculation of the production charge — Inclusion of the quantity of quota sugar withdrawn from the market in the basis for assessment of the charge — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-365/08) (1)

   (Sugar - Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 - Article 16 - Calculation of the production charge - Inclusion of the quantity of quota sugar withdrawn from the market in the basis for assessment of the charge - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)
   2010/C 179/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 34 of the EC Treaty, especially the principles of non-discrimination, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Interpretation and validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1) — Inclusion, for the purposes of calculating the production charge, of the quota subject to preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 (OJ 2007 L 78, p. 20)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that the quantity of quota sugar withdrawn from the market pursuant to Article 19 of that regulation and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 is included in the basis for assessment of the production charge.

               2.

               Examination of the second question has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 16 of Regulation No 318/2006.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-577/10: Action brought on 10 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/7

         Action brought on 10 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-577/10)
   2011/C 72/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by adopting Articles 137(8), third indent of 138, 153 and 157(3) of Framework Law (I) of 27 December 2006 (1), in the version in force since 1 April 2007, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the Commission claims that the national legislation which imposes a prior notification requirement on independent service providers established in other Member States (the ‘Limosa’ declaration), who wish to provide services in Belgium on a temporary basis, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.
   The Commission points out, in the first place, that the provisions at issue constitute a discriminatory restriction insofar as, firstly, they impose non-negligible and deterrent additional administrative formalities on the independent service providers at issue and, secondly, they establish a monitoring system that applies only to providers established in another Member State, without any objective reasons to justify that difference in treatment.
   In the second place, the applicant asserts that that restriction on the freedom to provide services, even if it is not discriminatory, is not justified by objectives in relation to the public interest, the maintenance of the financial balance of the social security system, the prevention of fraud or the protection of workers.

      (1)  Moniteur Belge, 28 December 2006, p. 75178.


title: Case T-323/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ECOSE — Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE)
   (Case T-323/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ECOSE - Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by M. Montañá, S. Sebé and I. Carulla, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2012 (Case R 259/2011-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL and Knauf Insulation Technologies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Knauf Insulation Technology to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-230/99: Action brought on 13 October 1999 by Hans Mc Auley against the Council of the European Union

text:
8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 6/29
The Commission states, as sole reason for the rate of return it          — annul the decisions appointing two other persons to the
regards as usual in the market on the part of the Wfa assets                 posts of Head of the English Language Division and Legal
which is economically usable for the applicant, that in its                  Adviser;
Crédit Lyonnais decision of 1995 it likewise regarded a return
of 12 % after tax as reasonable. The Crédit Lyonnais decision            — order the Council to pay the costs.
is not applicable to the present case, however, because Crédit
Lyonnais was a case of restructuring.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission confuses return on equity from the point of
view of the undertaking with return on investment from the
point of view of the capital investor, and wrongly assumes               The applicant contests the appointing authority’s refusal to
that expectations as to returns are in principle to be understood        accept his applications for two grade LA 3 posts.
as net return.
                                                                         In support of his claims, he pleads infringement of:
The rate of return of 12 % after tax for capital investments
used by the Commission is not tenable. The Commission has
confused pre-tax and after-tax figures.                                  — Articles 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
The transfer of Wfa to Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale              — the promotions procedure;
does not have any special features which could justify an
additional 1.5 % on top of the 12 % after tax.                           — the principles of equal treatment and career progression.
The Commission wrongly assumes that the applicant also has               Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers in the present
to pay a consideration for the part of the Wfa assets which is           case.
not usable for it.
Finally, the Commission wrongly fails to take account of the
synergy effects created by the merger of the two credit
institutions in calculating the amount of the consideration to
be paid.
                                                                         Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Colin Joynson
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-231/99)
Action brought on 13 October 1999 by Hans Mc Auley
         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (2000/C 6/53)
                        (Case T-230/99)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          (2000/C 6/52)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   (Language of the case: French)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Colin Joyn-
                                                                         son, represented by Beeket Bedford, of the Middle Temple
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  and by Messrs Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               Birmingham, B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
Communities on 13 October 1999 by Hans Mc Auley, residing
at Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    — annul the decision of the Commission in Case
                                                                             IV/36.081/F3 — Bass dated 16 June 1999;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare that the Commission is required under Article 233
— annul the Council’s decisions rejecting his applications for               of the Treaty establishing the European Community to
    the grade LA 3 posts of Head of the English Language                     take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment
    Division and Legal Adviser in that division;                             to be delivered;


title: Case C-435/07: Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/39

         Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-435/07)
   (2007/C 269/66)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and M. Telles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/39/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive into domestic law expired on 19 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 143.


title: Action brought on 5 August 1997 by New Europe Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-231/97)

text:
C 357/28                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                22 . 11 . 97
Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              Ms Jouhki the opportunity to take part in open
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                      competition COM/B/973 .
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) — application for
annulment of the Commission decision, notified to the                  Since Ms Jouhki satisfied the requirements in the notice of
applicant by letter dated 20 January 1997, not to proceed              competition for taking part in the competition, and since
with the complaint lodged by the applicant against the                 her taking part was nevertheless refused with no
Belgian National Railway Company ( SNCB ) for failing to               substantial grounds, the selection board's refusal is
comply with Community law in awarding a contract for                   erroneous as being unfounded. The decision made in
the supply of concrete sleepers for use on high-speed train            response to Ms Jouhki's demand for her application to be
lines — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),                 reconsidered by the selection board is likewise erroneous,
                                                                       inasmuch as the earlier erroneous decision was not
composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.                   corrected .
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 29 September 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :                                                        The time-limit under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       for replying to Ms Jouhki's complaint expired on 17 April
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      1997 .
2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to           Ms Jouhki 's complaint was not responded to within the
     intervene .
                                                                       time-limit. The EU administration informed her, however,
                                                                       that a reply to her complaint was still being prepared and
3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                         that the complaint would be dealt with on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       that is, the same day on which the time-limit for an
(') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.                                          application by Ms Jouhki to the Court of First Instance
                                                                       expired.
                                                                       On the above grounds, Ms Jouhki has an interest in
                                                                       bringing proceedings, in that her complaint was rejected
                                                                       or that it was not decided by 17 July 1997 at the latest.
Action brought on 14 July 1997 by Sari Kristiina Jouhki
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-215/97)
                            ( 97/C 357/54 )
                 (Language of the case: Finnish)                       Action brought on 5 August 1997 by New Europe
                                                                       Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown against the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                                      of the European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                            ( Case T-231/97)
Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1997
by Sari Kristiina Jouhki, of Pyhajarvi, Finland, represented                                   ( 97/C 357/55 )
by Harri Ojala, lawyer, of Oulu .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— declare that she was qualified and hence entitled to                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
     take part in open competition COM/B/973 and to be                 Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
     accepted for the post advertised as vacant,                       by New Europe Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown, of
                                                                       Dublin, represented by A. and B. De Roeck, of the
— declare the competition referred to in point 1 above                 Antwerp Bar.
     null and void and set a new time-limit for taking part
     in the competition, and
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the European Community to reimburse her costs
     in full together with interest for late payment in                — declare the claims of both applicants admissible and
     accordance with Paragraph 4 ( 3 ) of the Finnish                      well-founded,
     Korkolaki ( Law on interest) to run from one month
     from the date of judgment.
                                                                       — in that regard, order the defendant, the European
                                                                           Commission, to pay             compensation totalling
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ECU 1 400 000, together with compensatory interest
                                                                           thereon from the date of the event giving rise to the
The selection board appointed by Directorate-General IX                    damage, namely 12 April 1995 , and legal interest from
of the Commission ( Personnel and Administration) refused                  the date of the judgment to be delivered in the case,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 357/29
— at the same time, order the defendant to publish a                  Instance of the European Communities on 21 August
     mandatory written correction regarding the good                  1997 by Stork Amsterdam BV, established in Amsterdam
     name and reputation of the first applicant by means of           ( Netherlands ), represented by A. J. Braakman, of the
     a circular letter to be sent to all responsible persons          Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     concerned within PHARE management units and the                  at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
     Commission in east and central Europe, setting out the
     result of the judgment to be delivered,
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— at the same time, order the defendant to pay all the
     costs .                                                          — declare Stork's application admissible, at the same
                                                                          time acknowledging its entitlement to amplify and
                                                                          clarify the contents thereof,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1997,
The first applicant is a company engaged in carrying out
assignments in the context of the European Commission's
PHARE/TACIS programme . The second applicant is the                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
manager of the said company.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
On account of an alleged non-payment, the applicant
company was placed on the black list by a responsible
member of the Commission's staff. As a result, its income             The applicant contests the Commission's decision ( IV/F-1/
was reduced to zero. It was not until a year later that the           33.302 ) relating to its complaint against Serac SA
Commission       admitted     its mistake  and    that  all EU        concerning infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
delegations were informed that the applicant was no                   Treaty.
longer to be excluded. However, it very soon became
apparent that the rectification made by the Commission
was no more than a purely formal concession which was                 Stork and Serac each construct a machine which links up
not taken into account on a commercial level by the                   with the other party's machine to form a complete
different EU delegations. In fact, the Commission                     production line. By agreement between them, they have
continues to base its position on the alleged financial               undertaken not to develop or sell any machines which
unreliability of the applicant, which has never again been            may compete with the other party's machine. They have
officially invited to apply for selection for a PHARE                 further undertaken not to sell their own machine without
project.                                                              that of the other party.
The applicants claim compensation pursuant to the second              Upon being confronted, in 1989, with the anti-competitive
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, concerning                 effects of that agreement, the applicant informed Serac
non-contractual liability.                                            that the agreement in question was contrary to the rules in
                                                                      the EC Treaty prohibiting restraints of trade, and that it
                                                                      was thus no longer bound by that agreement. At the same
They further complain of breaches of the principle of                 time, the applicant submitted a complaint to the
proportionality, of the right to a fair hearing, of the duty          Commission. In 1990 Serac notified the agreement to the
to act with due care, of the principle that due weight is to          Commission .
be given to matters and of the principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations.
                                                                      In its response, the Commission suggested to the parties
                                                                      that the anti-competitive clauses be deleted, alternatively
                                                                      that the parties apply to the national courts.
                                                                      In 1996 the Commission re-opened the procedure, and in
Action brought on 21 August 1997 by Stork Amsterdam                   1997 it adopted the contested decision and rejected
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                 Stork 's claim .
                        ( Case T-241 /97 )
                          ( 97/C 357/56 )                             By its application, the applicant contests the Commission's
                                                                      finding that the agreement contributes to improving
                                                                      production ( Article- 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty) and, further,
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        that it has only insignificant economic effects on the
                                                                      relevant market .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-430/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)
   (Case T-430/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 144/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: P. Heusler, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 (Case R 8/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRENT INDEX as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-141/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent): Algemene Maatschappĳ voor Investering en Dienstverlening NV (AMID) v Belgische Staat (Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Direct taxes — Deduction of business losses — Previous tax year)

text:
C 150/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           19.5.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                       of 14 December 2000
                                                                                of 14 December 2000
in Case C-141/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): Algemene Maatschappij voor
Investering en Dienstverlening NV (AMID) v Belgische
                                Staat (1)                                  in Case C-347/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Direct taxes
     — Deduction of business losses — Previous tax year)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 95/50/EC)
                           (2001/C 150/02)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/03)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: English)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-141/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              In Case C-347/99: Commission of the European Communities
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hof van te                     (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) —
Beroep te Gent (Ghent Court of Appeal) (Belgium), for a                    application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply
court between Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en                    with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on
Dienstverlening NV (AMID) and Belgische Staat — on the                     uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  goods by road (OJ 1995 L 249, p. 35), or in any event by
amendment, Article 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the
Chamber, V. Skouris and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; S. Alber,                Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the              of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
which it has ruled:                                                        given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)          1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
precludes legislation of a Member State under which a company                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to
incorporated under national law, having its seat in that Member                  comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995
State, may, for the purposes of corporation tax, deduct a loss incurred          on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
the previous year from the taxable profit for the current year only on           goods by road, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the condition that that loss was not capable of being set off against            that directive.
the profit made during that same previous year by one of its
permanent establishments situated in another Member State, when
the loss, although set off, cannot be deducted from taxable income in      2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
either of the Member States concerned, whereas it would be deductible
if the establishments of that company were situated exclusively in the
Member State in which it has its seat.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Case C-335/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Řízení Letového Provozu ČR, s.p. v Bundesamt für Finanzen (Thirteenth VAT Directive — Article 2(2) — GATS — Most-favoured-nation clause — Interpretation of secondary Community law in the light of international agreements concluded by the Community)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Řízení Letového Provozu ČR, s.p. v Bundesamt für Finanzen
   (Case C-335/05) (1)

   (Thirteenth VAT Directive - Article 2(2) - GATS - Most-favoured-nation clause - Interpretation of secondary Community law in the light of international agreements concluded by the Community)
   (2007/C 170/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Řízení Letového Provozu ČR, s.p.

      Defendant: Bundesamt für Finanzen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40) — Possibility of making refunds of VAT to a taxable person established in the territory of a third State which is party to the WTO conditional upon reciprocity on the part of that State — Compatibility with the most-favoured-nation clause provided for in Article II(1) of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) — Interpretation in conformity with the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 2(2) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘third States’ referred to in that provision include all third States and that that provision is without prejudice to the ability and the responsibility of the Member States to comply with their obligations under international agreements such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

      (1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2000 in Case T-197/99: Anthony Gooch v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Place of recruitment — Withdrawal of an administrative act — Presumption of legality of an administrative act)

text:
C 118/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.4.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                      of 14 December 2000
                                                                         in Case T-197/99: Anthony Gooch v Commission of the
in Case T-105/99: Council of European Municipalities                                        European Communities (1)
and Regions (CEMR) v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)
                                                                         (Officials — Action for annulment — Non-contractual
                                                                         liability of the Community — Place of recruitment —
(Community law — Principle of effectiveness of Community                 Withdrawal of an administrative act — Presumption of
law — Principle of sound financial management — Set-off                                  legality of an administrative act)
between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable
             by way of Community contributions)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/98)
                         (2001/C 118/97)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        In Case T-197/99: Anthony Gooch, an official of the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of
                                                                         the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-105/99: Council of European Municipalities and                 care of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 13 Avenue du Bois, v
Regions (CEMR), having its registered office in Paris, represent-        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-
ed by F. Herbert and F. Renard, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Kayser) — application, first, for annulment of the Com-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     mission’s decision of 7 August 1998 rejecting a request for
K. Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, against Commission                compensation by the applicant and, second, for compensation
of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver, K. Simonsson             for the material damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First
and W. Neirinck) — application for annulment of the decision             Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
of the Commission, contained in the letter of 15 February                President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
1999 to the applicant, effecting set-off between their mutual            González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
claims — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                   ment on 5 December 2000, in which it:
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:             1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 August 1998 rejecting
                                                                               the applicant’s request for compensation;
1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission, contained in the letter
      of 15 February 1999 to the applicant, effecting set-off between    2.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant damages in the
      their mutual claims;                                                     sum of BEF 154 109 by way of compensation for the material
                                                                               damage suffered by him, together with default interest thereon
                                                                               at the annual rate of 6,75 % from 28 April 1998;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                         3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.


21.4.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                InformationRemoval from the Register of Case
                                                                                T-116/98 (1)
The defendant, an official in Grade A 3, contests the decision                                  (2001/C 118/116)
of the appointing authority, taken in the context of the
reorganisation of DG SANCO, to reassign him to the post of
Adviser to the Head of Unit of Directorate D (Unit D4) ‘Food                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
law and biotechnology’, despite the fact that until then he had
carried out those duties for the Director General.
                                                                         By order of 14 December 2000, the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
He explains in that regard that his appointment to the post of           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
adviser to the Director General was the result of an agreement           Case T-116/98, Compañı́a Trasmediterránea, S.A. v Com-
signed on 6 July 1993 between the applicant himself and the              mission of the European Communities.
Director General of DG Administration (formerly DG IX).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges the following
infringements:
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular
      Article 7(1), and the second and third paragraphs of
      Article 25, as well as failure to observe a number of
      general principles of law, such as the protection of                     Removal from the Register of Case T-244/99 (1)
      legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the duty to have
      regard for the welfare of officials, the principle pacta sunt                             (2001/C 118/117)
      observanda and those which require the appointing
      authority to adopt decisions only on the basis of relevant
      factors which are not vitiated by errors of fact or law.                              (Language of the case: Italian)
—     infringement of rules common to the Member States with             By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
      regard to performance of contracts.                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-244/99, Sadam Abruzzo SpA v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.10.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-205/96 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/115)                                        Removal from the Register of Case T-245/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/118)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 15 January 2001, the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Single Judge: J. Azizi), has ordered the           By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
removal from the Register of Case T-205/96, Roland Bieber                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
v European Parliament.                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-245/99, Sadam Castiglionese SpA v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.01.2000.


title: Case C-551/10 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2010 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 13 September 2010 in Case T-279/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/4

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2010 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 13 September 2010 in Case T-279/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission

   (Case C-551/10 P)
   2011/C 46/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel-Saville and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Lagardère SCA

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Case T-279/04 Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v Commission dismissing Odile Jacob's action, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, including those borne by Odile Jacob at first instance, and those incurred by that party in respect of this appeal;

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, Éditions Odile Jacob alleges an error in the application of the concept of a concentration within the meaning of Regulation 4064/89 (1) and an error in the legal classification of the holding; the relevant criteria for assessing control under Article 3(3) of Regulation 4064/89 were thereby disregarded. In the first place, by isolating the holding, by which Natexis Banques Populaires (NBP) temporarily acquired Vivendi Universal Publishing, from the legal arrangement which led to Lagardère's acquiring control of VUP, the General Court failed to have regard to the general objective of control of concentrations which is to deal with the economic reality underlying a group of legal transactions. In so doing, the General Court not only created a new exception to Regulation 4064/89, enabling holdings, whatever the undertaking being used as a vehicle charged with holding the assets to be divested, to escape control of concentrations, but also negates the effectiveness of Article 3(5)(a) of that regulation.
   In the second place, by excluding the classification of the holding under Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation 4064/89, the General Court in any event applied Article 3(3) of that regulation in an incorrect and truncated manner, that application being limited to a reading only of the contractual elements which structured the holding at issue.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court failed to draw the legal consequences of the procedural infringements committed by the Commission. By shielding from any review those infringements of Regulation 4064/89, relating inter alia to the infringement of the obligation to suspend the concentration, to the absence of notification of such a kind as to form the basis of the Commission's competence and to fraud by apparent substitution of the purchaser, the General Court validated a contravention of the law equivalent to a misuse of powers by the Commission.
   By its third ground of appeal, Éditions Odile Jacob alleges that the General Court erred in law by failing to sanction by annulment essential procedural requirements vitiating the Commission's decision. That ground of appeal relates in particular to the failure to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the classification of the holding at issue and to the applicability of Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation 4064/89 to a part of that holding and alleges infringement of the principles of equality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
   By its fourth and final ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in that it disregarded the relevant legal criteria for assessing the creation or strengthening of a dominant position and whether the commitments were appropriate in relation to the Commission's findings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Refusal to authorise secondment on union duties to the person designated by a trade union - Admissibility)

text:
C 299/34             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
                       of 17 July 1998                             Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                   gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
in Case T-28/97: AgneÁs Hubert v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                         1. dismisses the action;
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Transfer/reposting             2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð Interests of the service Ð Absence of statement of
            reasons Ð Action for compensation)                     (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                        (98/C 299/57)
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-28/97: AgneÁs Hubert, an official of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                                       of 16 July 1998
Brusels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge
                                                                   in Case T-81/97: Region of Tuscany v. Commission of the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, v. the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    (Integrated Mediterranean programmes Ð Community
Gianluigi Valsesia, Christine Berardis-Kayser and Denis            financial assistance Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 Ð
Waelbroeck) Ð application, first, for annulment of the                            Regulation (EEC) No 2085/93)
Commission's decision of 27 March 1996 changing the
                                                                                (98/C 299/59)
applicant's posting and, second, for compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly resulting                              (Language of the case: Italian)
therefrom Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.                 In Case T-81/97: Region of Tuscany, represented by Vito
Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal             Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paolo
17 July 1998, in which it:                                         Benocci, 50, rue de Vianden, against the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities (Agents: Paolo Ziotti and
1. dismisses the action;                                           Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of several
                                                                   acts of the Commission concerning the Community
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                   assistance allocated to project No 88.20.IT.006.0 (works
                                                                   for the supply of drinking water in Tuscany) Ð the Court
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                   16 July 1998 in which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   1. annuls the decision contained in the letter of
                       (First Chamber)                                  31 January 1997;
                       of 14 July 1998
                                                                   2. dismisses the      remainder    of  the   application  as
in Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                   inadmissible;
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                   3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(Officials Ð Refusal to authorise secondment on union
duties to the person designated by a trade union Ð                 (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                         Admissibility)
                        (98/C 299/58)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the                                      of 16 July 1998
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles                  in Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV and
BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                     Broeckman Motorships BV v. Commission of the
service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de                                   European Communities (1)
l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European                   (Commission decision declaring that the repayment of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                 import duties is not justified Ð Action for annulment Ð
Currall) Ð application for, first, the annulment of a               Article 239 of the customs code Ð Duty to state reasons)
decision of the Commission of 12 May 1996 refusing to
                                                                                (98/C 299/60)
grant to the applicant the secondment on union duties
requested by his trade union and the re-examination of all                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
secondment on trade union duties granted in the past and,
secondly, a finding that the secondment on trade union             In Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV, established
duties procedure was unlawful Ð the Court of First                 in Vianen (The Netherlands), and Broeckman Motorships
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,              BV, established in Rotterdam (The Netherlands),