title: Case T-107/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2007 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of silicon originating in Russia — Injury — Causal link)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2007 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-107/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of silicon originating in Russia - Injury - Causal link)
   (2007/C 95/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Willems and L. Ruessmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, Agent, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talabér Ricz, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating [in] Russia (OJ 2003 L 339, p. 3).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating [in] Russia in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant;

               2.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-125/12: Action brought on 14 March 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/19

         Action brought on 14 March 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission
   (Case T-125/12)
   2012/C 138/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011 in Case C 2/03 on the measures implemented by Denmark for TV2/Danmark (Decision 2011/839/EU) (OJ 2011 L 340, p. 1);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law when it carried out the compatibility test under Article 106(2) TFEU since it failed to draw the necessary consequences from the finding that the public service compensation to TV 2 had been granted in violation of the second and of the fourth Altmark conditions (Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, ECR [2003] 7747).

                           1.1.

                           As regards the interrelation between the second Altmark condition and Article 106(2) TFEU, the applicant maintains that:

                                       —

                                       the transparency requirements stated in the second Altmark condition are also inherent in the test carried out by the defendant under Article 106(2) TFEU;

                                       —

                                       the defendant already requires compliance with other purely formal requirements in order for Article 106(2) TFEU to be complied with;

                                       —

                                       Article 106(2) TFEU already contains a requirement of transparency and the presence of certain structural safeguards;

                                       —

                                       the second Altmark condition is already reflected in various Commission Communications and Decisions concerning the applicability of Article 106(2) TFEU — also in the field of public service broadcasting; and

                                       —

                                       there is no convincing reason why the defendant should not, in the present case, take into account its own interpretation of Article 106(2) TFEU in its various Communications and Decisions, in particular when the Commission’s interpretation is derived from developments in case law.

                           1.2.

                           As regards the interrelation between the fourth Altmark condition and Article 106(2) TFEU, the applicant maintains that:

                                       —

                                       it would have detrimental consequences to competition in the market not to consider the efficiency of the public service broadcaster for the purpose of applying Article 106(2) TFEU in the absence of a public tender;

                                       —

                                       the harm to competition would be particularly significant in the broadcasting sector since all costs incurred by a public service operator may be characterised as additional public service costs that may be compensated by the Member State, and where there is no obligation to examine if the costs result from inefficient management or from the public service obligation;

                                       —

                                       public service compensation may therefore be used as de facto rescue aid or operating aid, allowing a failing firm to continue its operations instead of being restructured or eliminated;

                                       —

                                       an efficiency test does not make Article 106(2) TFEU a ‘dead letter’ since the Commission may, depending on the characteristics of the case, approve compensation which exceeds the costs of an average, well-run undertaking; and

                                       —

                                       the aim of Article 106(2) TFEU, as interpreted in the light of the Amsterdam Protocol, is not to shield a particular public service broadcaster from the rules of competition but to protect the freedom of Member States in defining public service missions and to ensure that the citizens receive public services at the least cost to society.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU since it failed to state the reasons for approving the aid under Article 106(2) TFEU when the second and the fourth Altmark conditions were not observed.


title: Case T-227/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod MEDIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark bluepod MEDIA — Earlier Community figurative mark blue spot and earlier international and national word marks BlueSpot — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod MEDIA)
   (Case T-227/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark bluepod MEDIA - Earlier Community figurative mark blue spot and earlier international and national word marks BlueSpot - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wall AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann and T. Boddien, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 301/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wall AG and Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wall AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2000 in Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Poultry imports — Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Commission decision refusing repayment of agricultural levies — Revoked — Statement for the file — Legality — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty to provide reasons)

text:
18.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/23
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 18 July 1997 refusing to             of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
     recognise the applicant as an interested party in the context of the   Judges; M.A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     antidumping proceeding leading to the adoption of Commission           a judgment on 18 January 2000, in which it:
     Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 imposing a
     provisional antidumping duty on imports of unbleached cotton           1. Dismisses the action;
     fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt,
     India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey;
                                                                            2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred
     by its request for a ruling that there was no need to adjudicate;
4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
     Ireland to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 January 2000
                                                                            in Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotions — Grade A 2 post — Action for
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                            annulment)
                          of 18 January 2000                                                         (2000/C 79/51)
in Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV v Commission                                           (Language of the case: Greek)
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis, an official of the
(Action for annulment — Poultry imports — Article 13                        Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Commission decision                        sels, represented by Eleni Metaxaki and Panayotis Giatagantzi-
refusing repayment of agricultural levies — Revoked —                       dis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
Statement for the file — Legality — Legitimate expectations                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki,
— Legal certainty — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty                    4 rue de l’Avenir, against Commission of the European
                          to provide reasons)                               Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and
                                                                            Paraskevas Anestis) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                            decision to appoint Antonio Caeiro as Principal Legal Adviser
                            (2000/C 79/50)                                  at the Commission, the decision rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                            candidature for the same post and the implied decision of the
                                                                            Commission rejecting the applicant’s complaint — the Court
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Regis-
                                                                            trar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2000, in which it:
In Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV, a company
incorporated under Netherlands law, established in Rotterdam,               1. dismisses the application.
the Netherlands, represented by Pierre Bos, Jasper Helder and
Marco Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                   2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Hendrick van Lier and Jules Stuyck ) — application                 (1) OJ 1998 C 327.
for annulment of Commission Decision C (97) 2331 of 22 July
1997 refusing the application submitted by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands for repayment to the applicant of agricultural
levies — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed


title: Case T-249/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste B.V.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (a) declare the application admissible;
                         (Case T-249/99)                                (b) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                          (2000/C 6/60)                                      Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany;
                                                                        (c) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste                This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads,
B.V., of Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel (Netherlands), represented by         inter alia, infringement of the principle of the protection of
R. van Gelder, of the Voorschoten Bar.                                  legitimate expectations and claims that the reasons for the
                                                                        decision are incomprehensible, since it has passed the subsidy
                                                                        on to its customers, who are therefore the real recipients
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             thereof.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
     Germany, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation Jagt
                                                                        B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
T-210/99.                                                                                (Case T-259/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/62)
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation
                                                                        Jagt B.V., of Coevorden (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        J.J.L.M. Johanninck, of the Coevorden Bar.
Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel Van
den Belt B.V. against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Com-
                                                                        mission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999
                                                                        concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service
                         (Case T-253/99)                                stations in the region bordering Germany, in so far as it
                                                                        concerns the applicant.
                          (2000/C 6/61)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                        T-210/99.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel
Van den Belt B.V., of Drachten (Netherlands), represented by
J.F. Verwilligen, of the Drachten Bar.


title: Case F-40/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Časta v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Request for a review — Obligation to state reasons — Professional experience required — Late submission of a certificate — Principle of equal treatment — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Časta v Commission
   (Case F-40/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Request for a review - Obligation to state reasons - Professional experience required - Late submission of a certificate - Principle of equal treatment - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   2010/C 274/49
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Radek Časta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Tahotná, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and M. L. Jelínek, acting as Agents.)

      Re:

   First, an application for annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in open competition EPSO/AD/107/07-LAW on account of the fact that the condition relating to 3 years’ experience in a senior management post was not met and secondly, an application for an order that the defendant pay the applicant a sum in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Ms Časta to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009, p. 51


title: Case C-353/11: Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-353/11) (1)

   2012/C 303/37
   Language of the case: Czech
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-266/07: Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Air One SpA v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/54

         Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Air One SpA v Commission
   (Case T-266/07)
   (2007/C 211/101)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Air One SpA (represented by: M. Merola and P. Ziotti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2007 1712) of 23 April 2007 on public service obligations on certain routes to and from Sardinia, to the extent that it requires the Italian Government to allow all air carriers who accept the relevant public service obligations (PSO) to operate routes between Sardinia and the mainland, irrespective of whether their acceptance is made before or after expiry of the period of 30 days laid down in the national legislation (Article 1(a) of that Decision);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant requests, under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the annulment of Article 1(a) of Commission Decision C (2007 1712) of 23 April 2007 on public service obligations on certain routes to and from Sardinia, under Article 4 of Council Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               —

               Manifest error of appreciation and illogical and contradictory statement of reasons. The applicant submits first of all that the Commission — by requiring the Italian Government to allow all air carriers who intend to respect the PSO to operate the routes in question, regardless of the period in which they notified their intention to commence service provision and whether or not notification was sent during or after the 30-day period set in the Decrees — has erred in its assessment of the scheme introduced by the Italian Government in the light of the reasoning and objectives of the relevant Community rules. In particular the applicant claims that Article 4 of Regulation No 2408/92 obliges Member States to achieve the objective of territorial continuity by means of the imposition of public service obligations which, although they represent an exception to the principle of free access for Community carriers to intra-community routes, nonetheless respect the principle of proportionality and therefore restrict as far as possible the concession of exclusive rights and/or financial compensation. In the applicant's opinion, the Italian Government has fully complied with the spirit of the Community legislation, given that setting a mandatory period for the ‘first phase’ of the procedure of imposing public service obligations:

                           —

                           encourages the submission of offers from carriers and the allocation by the State of the relevant public service obligations in the course of that ‘first phase’, and

                           —

                           restricts the possibility of passing to the ‘second phase’ in which the Government would be obliged to grant, by means of invitation to tender, exclusive rights, with the possibility of taking responsibility for the relevant financial compensation.

               —

               It is moreover obvious — notwithstanding what is implicitly claimed by the Commission — that competition between air carriers on routes burdened by public service obligations cannot be carried on in the same way as that found on routes free of such obligations. In as much as PSO schemes presuppose that problems of profitability are a feature of the routes in question, to the extent that no carrier would choose to operate such routes, in a manner which met the public interest, in normal market conditions: it is therefore necessary to introduce safeguard mechanisms for law-abiding and diligent carriers.

               —

               The applicant claims further that the regulatory framework prescribed by the Commission is discriminatory, since the elimination of the mandatory period for acceptance of public service obligations in the ‘first phase’ is to the advantage principally of carriers which have significant market power, allowing them to offer for the PSO routes after expiry of the period, when competitors have submitted offers, with the primary objective of taking market share from those competitors.

               —

               Lastly, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission's reasoning is vitiated by an error of law relating to the characteristics of the procedure of imposing public service obligations. In that respect, the applicant submits that application of a non-mandatory term would have the effect of prolonging indefinitely the ‘first phase’ of the procedure, which is illogical, and inconsistent with the declaration of the Commission itself to the effect that the procedure for imposition of public service obligations, while unitary, consists of two phases.


title: Case T-350/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Jordi Nogues v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/38

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Jordi Nogues v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
   (Case T-350/13)
   2013/C 252/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jordi Nogues SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.R. Fernández Castellanos, M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Pares, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 April 2013 in Case R 1446/2012-2;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘BADTORO’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 34 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 565 581

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Grupo Osborne, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘TORO’, national word mark ‘EL TORO’ and Community word mark ‘TORO’, for goods and services in Classes 25, 34, 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Incorrect departure from the general principle of comparison as a whole, without valid reason


title: Case C-390/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma) — Nuova Agricast Srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive (State aid — Aid scheme authorised for a specific period — Notification of the amended aid scheme for a new period — Transitional measures between the two schemes — Decision of the Commission not to raise objections — Information available to the Commission — Validity of the Commission's decision — Equal treatment — Statement of reasons)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma) — Nuova Agricast Srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   (Case C-390/06) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme authorised for a specific period - Notification of the amended aid scheme for a new period - Transitional measures between the two schemes - Decision of the Commission not to raise objections - Information available to the Commission - Validity of the Commission's decision - Equal treatment - Statement of reasons)
   (2008/C 142/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale ordinario di Roma
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nuova Agricast Srl

      Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Roma — Validity of the Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the Treaty an aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation in the form of aid for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (SG(2000)D/105754)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Examination of the question submitted has revealed nothing which might affect the validity of the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections against an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy until 31 December 2006 (State aid No N 715/99 — Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-420/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2008 — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2008 — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin
   (Case C-420/08)
   (2008/C 327/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yasar Erdil

      Defendant: Land Berlin
   Question referred
   Can a Turkish national whose legal status is derived from the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and who has lived in Germany since his birth in 1989 rely on the special protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of 29 April 2004?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77). (Corrigendum to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35)).


title: Case C-154/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 1 April 2015 — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v BBK Bank Cajasur, S.A.U.

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 1 April 2015 — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v BBK Bank Cajasur, S.A.U.
   (Case C-154/15)
   (2015/C 228/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo

      Defendant: BBK Bank Cajasur, S.A.U.

      Questions referred

               1)

               In such cases, is an interpretation according to which an unfair term declared void nonetheless produces effects until that declaration is made compatible with the interpretation of ‘non-binding’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1)? Therefore, even though the term has been declared void, will the effects produced by that term while it was in force be considered not to be invalidated or ineffective?

               2)

               Is an injunction that may be issued to desist from using a particular term (in accordance with Articles 6(1) and 7(1)) in an individual action brought by a consumer when such a declaration is made compatible with a limitation of the effects of a declaration of nullity? May (the courts) alter the reimbursement of any sums paid by the consumer — which the seller or supplier is obliged to reimburse — under the term subsequently declared void ex tunc, for want of information and/or of transparency?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-183/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by judgment of that court of 3 March 2004 in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by judgment of that court of 3 March 2004 in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs
   (Case C-183/04)
   (2004/C 201/13)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, Greece) of 3 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs on the following questions:
   The questions in the present case match the questions in Case C-181/04.


title: Case T-634/16: Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Montel v Parliament

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/28

         Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Montel v Parliament
   (Case T-634/16)
   (2016/C 383/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sophie Montel (Saint-Vit, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, determining ‘that a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongfully paid to Ms Sophie MONTEL’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that amount;

               —

               also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of 5 and 6 July 2016, ref. D 201922 and D 201851; and

               —

               annul the entirety of the debit note No. 2016-897 signed by that Director-General for Finance dated 4 July 2016;

               —

               award the applicant the sum of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting simultaneously from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

               —

               in addition award her the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents, and order the European Parliament to pay that amount;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs;

               —

               alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament:

                           —

                           stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament;

                           —

                           consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament.


title: Case T-120/10: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — Refusal to amend the form of order sought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

         Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
   (Case T-120/10) (1)

   (Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - Refusal to amend the form of order sought - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 6/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) (Brussels, Belgium); European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels); BirdLife International (Brussels) (represented by: S. Hockman QC, and by P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 9 February 2010 refusing access to certain documents relating to biofuels modelling

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by ClientEarth, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and BirdLife International.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 1996 in Case C-198/94: Italian Republic v. Commission (Clearance of EAGGF accounts - 1991 financial year)

text:
No C 210/2            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 7 . 96
Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 ( OJ No L 84, 1989 , p . 2 ) and          3 . Consideration of Article 3 (a), and in particular the
by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( OJ No L 150,                       second indent of the last subparagraph ofparagraph (1 ),
1991 , p . 35 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of:                    of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho                     Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 and Regulation (EEC)
de Almeida, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and                            No 1639/91 , in so far as that provision excludes
L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                     producers finding themselves in the abovementioned
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June                   circumstances from the award of a special reference
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                            quantity, has not revealed any factor ofsuch a kind as to
                                                                              affect its validity in the light of the principle of the
                                                                              protection of legitimate expectations.
As regards Ecroyd Limited
                                                                       (•) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
1 . The competent national authority had no duty under
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
    1 984 adopting general rules for the application of the
    levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of Regulation (EEC)
    No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as
    amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of
    20 March 1 989, and in particular under Article 3 (a) (1 )
    thereof, to award a provisional special reference
    quantity to producers finding themselves in the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    circumstances described under points (a) to (e) of
    Question 1 , nor did it have the power to do so .                                            ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 June 1996
2 . The competent national authority had no duty,                           in Case C-l 98/94 : Italian Republic v. Commission (^
    following the judgment of 3 December 1992 in Case                     (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1991 financial year)
    C-264/90 Wehrs v. Hauptzollamt Liineburg, to award a
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/03 )
    provisional special reference quantity to producers
    finding      themselves      in     the     abovementioned
    circumstances, nor did it have the power to do so.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
3 . Article 3 (a) (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as
    amended by Regulation (EEC) No 764/89, is invalid in               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    so far as it excludes producers finding themselves in the                     published in the European Court Reports)
    abovementioned circumstances from the award of a
    special reference quantity.
                                                                       In Case C-l 98/94 : Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto
                                                                       Leanza, assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli ) v . Commission of the
4 . Before the adoption of further Community legislation               European Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March, assisted
    intended to cure the invalidity found, the competent               by Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of
    national authority has no duty to award a special                  Commission Decision C(94 ) 1011 final, of29 April 1994 on
    reference quantity to producers finding themselves in              the clearance of accounts of Italy for certain expenditure
    the abovementioned circumstances, nor does it have the
                                                                       financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and
    power to do so.                                                    Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee Section, for the
                                                                       financial year 1991 — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed
As regards Rupert Ecroyd                                               of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P.
                                                                       Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,
1 . The competent national authority had no duty under                 Advocate-General; H. A. Rùhl , Principal Administrator, for
    Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by                          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 1 996 , in which
    Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 and by Council                          it :
    Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 , and in
    particular by the second indent of the last subparagraph
    of Article 3 (a) ( 1 ) thereof, to award a special reference       1 , dismisses the application;
    quantity to producers finding themselves in the
    circumstances described under points (a) to (k) of
    Question 1 , nor did it have the power to do so .                  2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2 . The competent national authority had no duty,                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
    following the judgment in Wehrs, cited above, to award
    a special reference quantity to producers finding
    themselves in the abovementioned circumstances, nor
    did it have the power to do so .


title: Case C-225/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) by order of that court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio SpA, acting on its own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl, against ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association with IOS SpA

text:
12.8.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/19
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of           1.    In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
10 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on                     excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
2 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Director-               their tenders explanations concerning components of the
Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social                       price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços                    specified in the tender conditions represent an obstacle
SA. The Supremo Tribunal Administrativo referred to the                      to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
Court for a preliminary ruling on the correct interpretation of
Community law, namely:                                                 2.    Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining
                                                                             the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the
                                                                             validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an
—    Articles 5(4) and 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             ad hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically
     No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October 1983 on the implementa-                    so that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold
     tion of Decision 83/516/EEC (2) on the tasks of the
                                                                             in advance, represent an obstacle to the application of
     European Social Fund (ESF); and
                                                                             Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
—    Article 5 of Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October            3.    Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place
     1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund                           at an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has
                                                                             allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of
                                                                             an opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of
in order to ascertain whether where the certification decision,              the envelopes and before the adoption of the measure
for which the DAFSE is competent, deems certain expenditure                  excluding it, represent an obstacle to the application of
to be unreasonable and only certifies it in part (in other words,            Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
the negative part of the certification decision) makes it
impossible for the Commission to approve payments relating             4.    Does a provision under which the contracting authority
to the expenditure which was not certified by the competent                  may take account of explanations relating solely to the
body in the Member State.                                                    economy of the construction method or the technical
                                                                             solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable condi-
                                                                             tions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
(1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.                                                     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
(2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
                                                                       5.    Does the exclusion of explanations relating exclusively to
                                                                             items for which minimum values have been established
                                                                             by administrative provisions or can be inferred from
                                                                             official lists represent an obstacle to the application of
                                                                             Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber                   coordination of procedures for the award of public works
of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) by order of                   contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
that court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio
SpA, acting on its own account and also as mandated
under its ad hoc association with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl,
against ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro
Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its own account and also
  as mandated under its ad hoc association with IOS SpA
                                                                       Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
                         (Case C-225/00)
                                                                        European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                         (2000/C 233/36)                                                         (Case C-230/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/37)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of
the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 7 March 2000,             An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2000, for a prelimina-        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
ry ruling in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio SpA, acting on its          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association          represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the Commission’s
with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl, against ANAS — Ente Nazionale            Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by H. van der Woude
per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its           and T.E.M. Chellingsworth, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association          for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
with IOS SpA, on the following questions:                              Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-480/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Greece v Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/18

         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-480/17)
   (2017/C 357/23)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and Α. Vassilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission Implementing Decision of 26 June 2017 in so far as it excluded from European Union financing, in the context of the clearance of accounts for compliance, expenditure of the Hellenic Republic amounting in total to EUR 1 182 054,72, by means of the imposition of one-off and flat-rate financial corrections on the ground of alleged weaknesses in the application of cross compliance within the framework of the EAGF and the EAFRD for the claim years 2012, 2013 and 2014, in accordance with what is set out in the pleadings and the pleas in law in support of annulment,·and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

               1.

               By the first plea in law, it is claimed that the contested correction has been imposed unlawfully, on the basis of error as to the facts, with a defective and insufficient statement of reasons and in breach of the principles of good administration and equity, as shown in detail, in the first part of that plea, with respect to alleged weaknesses of certain elements in the verification of SMR 1 and particular elements in the verification of minimum requirements in the use of fertilisers and plant protection products, and, in the second part of that plea, with respect to a claimed weakness in risk analysis.

               2.

               The second plea in law is based on a failure to state reasons, error as to the facts and the contested decision’s breach of the principle of proportionality in the part thereof that rejects the accurate calculation of the financial effect of the identified failings (were they to be real) which was established by the Greek authorities, given the recommendations of the Conciliation Body to the Commission.


title: Case C-613/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Case C-613/12)
   2013/C 101/18
   Language of the case: German

      Requesting court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helm Düngemittel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

      Question referred

   Has the origin of goods not been established in the case where a partial movement certificate for the goods was issued under Article 20 of Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006, (1) although the requirements of that provision were not fulfilled because the goods were not under the control of the issuing customs authorities at the point in time at which the partial movement certificate was issued.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 73, p. 1.


title: Case T-33/99: Action brought on 4 February 1999 by Elvira Méndez Pinedo against the European Central Bank

text:
1.5.1999                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 121/17
      — the Commission’s reasoning was defective, and                           — is disproportionate to reductions granted in other
                                                                                cases.
      — the Commission relied on a case handler who has                   (1) OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4.
            displayed substantial bias against the applicant.             (2) Commission guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed
                                                                              pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5)
                                                                              of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3)..
2. I n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e E C T r e a t y , i n c l u d i n g
    fundamental principles of Community
    l a w : The Commission, having induced the applicant
    to cooperate extensively pursuant to the newly issued
    Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of
    fines in cartel cases (the leniency notice) (1) retroactively
    applied the new fining guidelines (2) which generally lead            Action brought on 4 February 1999 by Elvira Méndez
    to fines higher than those assessed under the Commission’s                      Pinedo against the European Central Bank
    practice prevailing at the time when the applicant decided
    to cooperate. This conduct:                                                                     (Case T-33/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 121/39)
      — violates the principle of protection of legitimate
            expectations,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      — violates the fundamental principle of a fair adminis-             An action against the European Central Bank was brought
            trative procedure,                                            before the Court of First Instance on 4 February 1999 by Elvira
                                                                          Méndez Pinedo, represented by Antonio Méndez Garcı́a, of the
                                                                          Madrid Bar, with an address for services at Calle Bravo Murillo
      — violates the principle of good administrative practice            36, 2nd floor, 28015, Madrid, Spain.
            and consistent application of Community law.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should
                                                                          examine the legality of the selection procedure with which this
3. I n f r i n g e m e n t o f A r t i c l e 1 5 ( 2 ) o f R e g u -      action is concerned.
    l a t i o n N o 1 7 : In setting the fine at ECU 100 million
    (before application of the leniency notice) the Commission
    infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. In particular:           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          The applicant complains that it was materially impossible for
      — the fine is disproportionate to fines assessed against            her to submit her application in a procedure for the selection
            co-defendants in this case,                                   of staff organised by the European Central Bank, the announce-
                                                                          ment for which appeared in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                          Communities of 26 May 1998 (C 159). Such impossibility
                                                                          derived from the fact that the time limit laid down in the
      — the Commission erred in assessing the duration of the             notice for the submission of applications was much shorter
            infringement committed by the applicant,                      than that normally set in the Official Journal distributed on
                                                                          Spanish territory.
      — the Commission improperly took into account aggra-                In support of her claims, the applicant puts forward the
            vating circumstances, and                                     following pleas:
                                                                          — Infringement of essential procedural requirements laid
      — the Commission improperly disregarded extenuating                      down in Article 29 of the staff Regulations of officials of
            factors.                                                           the European Communities and Annex III thereto.
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of equal treatment or non-
4. M i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l e n i e n c y n o t i c e :         discrimination, in that a time limit as short as that laid
    The Commission improperly applied its own leniency                         down for the submission of applications in the competition
    notice vis-à-vis the applicant. The applicant should have                  at issue favours candidates residing in Luxembourg and
    been accorded a reduction of at least 50 %. In particular,                 others who became aware of the selection procedure by
    the reduction of merely 30 % granted by the Commission:                    other means.
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of good management and sound
                                                                               administration in relation to Article 27 of the Staff
      — puts the applicant into the same category as other                     Regulations of officials of the European Communities.
            co-defendants in this case, whose cooperation was —
            by the Commission’s own admission — far less
            extensive,


title: Case T-482/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-482/17)
   (2017/C 330/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Comercial Vascongada Recalde, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Rivas Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by Comercial Vascongada Recalde, S.A., taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 133 385,04, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and (4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) insofar as the Banco Popular was not ‘failing’ as described in those provisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10(10), 10(11) and 21(2)(b) of Regulation No 806/2014, insofar as there were indeed alternatives to the resolution of Banco Popular.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1.


title: Case T-183/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2009 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHMI — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative and word mark jello SCHUHPARK — Earlier national word mark Schuhpark — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of earlier mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2009 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHMI — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)
   (Case T-183/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative and word mark jello SCHUHPARK - Earlier national word mark Schuhpark - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of earlier mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 153/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH (Warendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Peter and J. Braune, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Leder & Schuh AG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: W. Kellenter and A. Schlaffge, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1560/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Schuhpark Fascies GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Joined Cases C-302/11 to C-305/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — National Competition Authority — Stabilisation procedure — Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition — Determination of length of service — Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Joined Cases C-302/11 to C-305/11) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - National Competition Authority - Stabilisation procedure - Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition - Determination of length of service - Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2012/C 379/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11)

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National legislation under which it is possible, in derogation from the principle that public officials must be recruited by means of an open competition, for the public administrative authorities to enter into permanent work contracts with workers who have been in the employ of those authorities under fixed-term contracts — No account taken of the length of service accrued on the basis of the earlier, fixed-term contract, even where there is no interruption of the employment relationship

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be understood as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely prohibits periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, unless that prohibition is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4). The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship does not constitute such an objective ground.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-368/10: Action brought on 22 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/10

         Action brought on 22 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-368/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra and F. Wilman)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by virtue of the fact that in the course of the award of a public contract for the supply and management of automatic coffee machines, published under No 2004/S 158-213630, the contracting authority

                           —

                           inserted in the technical specification a requirement for the Max Havelaar and EKO-keurmerk, or in any event marks with a similar or the same basis, thus contrary to Article 23(6) and (8) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1)

                           —

                           included, for appraising the ability of operators, criteria and evidence concerning sustainable purchasing and socially responsible undertakings, thus contrary to Article 48(1) and (2), Article 44(2), and in any event Article 2, of that directive,

                           —

                           included, when formulating the award criteria, a reference to the Max Havelaar and/or EKO-keurmerk, or in any event marks with the same basis, thus contrary to Article 53(1) of that directive,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/18/EC;

               —

               order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that, in the context of a public procurement procedure published by a Province for the supply and management of automatic coffee machines, the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under European Union law in regard to public contracts, in particular Directive 2004/18/EC. The infringements of that directive relate to Article 23(6) and (8) with regard to technical specifications, Article 48(1) and (2), Article 44(2), or in any event Article 2, with regard to appraisal of the abilities of operators, and Article 53(1) with regard to the award criteria.

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


title: Case T-215/12: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014  — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 — Earlier international and national marks PRIM — Bad faith — Article 165(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 41 and 56 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/42

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
   (Case T-215/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 - Earlier international and national marks PRIM - Bad faith - Article 165(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 41 and 56 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   2014/C 421/59
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicants: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic); and Eutech a.s. (Šternberk, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Mesto nad Metují, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Matoušek, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2012 (Case R 826/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between (i) MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s. and (ii) Elton Hodinářská a.s.

      Operative part of the order

      The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case F-88/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — Kolarova v REA (Civil service — Staff of the Research Executive Agency — Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) — Appeal against the decisions of the PMO — Appeal against the delegating institution — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — Kolarova v REA
   (Case F-88/13)
   ((Civil service - Staff of the Research Executive Agency - Preliminary issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment - Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) - Appeal against the decisions of the PMO - Appeal against the delegating institution - Manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 184/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Desilava Kolarova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou, Agent and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   The application to annul the dismissal of the applicant’s request for her mother to be treated as a dependent child under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Kolarova is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Research Executive Agency.


title: Case T-489/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/40

         Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)
   (Case T-489/17)
   (2017/C 309/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH (Daun, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bottle stopper) — Application for registration No 15 024 987

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1374/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-538/13: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2014  — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Letter of formal notice sent in the context of ongoing infringement proceedings concerning the compliance with EU law of German aviation law — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/14

         Order of the General Court of 2 September 2014 — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission
   (Case T-538/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Letter of formal notice sent in the context of ongoing infringement proceedings concerning the compliance with EU law of German aviation law - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   2014/C 380/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Verein Natura Havel eV (Berlin, Germany), and Hans-Peter Vierhaus (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Austilat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by B. Martenczuk and C. Zadra, and subsequently by B. Martenczuk and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24 June 2013 rejecting the initial request for access to a letter of formal notice sent to the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 258 TFEU and of the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2013 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to that letter.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Verein Natura Havel eV and Hans-Peter Vierhaus are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-384/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Intermark v OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark RIENERGY Cola — Earlier Community figurative mark Coca-Cola and earlier Community word mark COCA-COLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Intermark v OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola)
   (Case T-384/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark RIENERGY Cola - Earlier Community figurative mark Coca-Cola and earlier Community word mark COCA-COLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 146/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented initially by Á. László, and subsequently by B. Bozóki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1116/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and Intermark Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-757/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Facebook v OHIM — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/41

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Facebook v OHIM — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)
   (Case T-757/15)
   (2016/C 068/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Facebook, Inc. (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brand IP Licensing Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘lovebook’ — Community trade mark application No 9 926 577

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2015 in Case R 2028/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division which upheld the opposition against the CTM application No 9 926 577 LOVEBOOK on the basis of likelihood of confusion, based in its conclusions that the similarities of the signs are minor in relation to their differences, that the overall impression of the signs in the perception of the relevant public is that they are not similar, and that this is so, even if the earlier trademarks enjoy enhanced distinctiveness;

               —

               order reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-17/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 30 November 2000 in the case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz

text:
C 79/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.3.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                ‘Whether Directive 80/987/EEC (1) and the judgments relating
of by order of that court of 30 November 2000 in the                    to it (judgments in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 of
     case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz                  13 November 1991 and Case C-373/95 of 10 July 1997) may
                                                                        be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the ceiling imposed,
                                                                        it is lawful to prohibit aggregation of the compensation
                          (Case C-17/01)                                awarded by the Guarantee Fund and part of the wages paid by
                                                                        the employer in the last three months only as regards the
                          (2001/C 79/31)                                amount exceeding that represented by the level of the indennita
                                                                        di mobilità (job-seeker’s allowance) provided for, ratione
                                                                        temporis, in respect of the same period, in view of the fact that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  the said advances appear, like the job seeker’s allowance and
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    up to the same amount, to be intended to cover the primary
(Federal Finance Court) of 30 November 2000, received at the            needs of the dismissed worker.’
Court Registry on 15 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz on
the following questions:                                                (1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23 (Council directive of 20 October 1980).
1.    Is Article 2 of the Council Decision 2000/186/EC (1) of
      28 February 2000 authorising the Federal Republic of
      Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6
      and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
      to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:             Action brought on 18 January 2001 by Kingdom of Spain
      uniform basis of assessment invalid because the procedure             against Commission of the European Communities
      prior to the adoption of the decision did not meet the
      criteria laid down in Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC?
                                                                                (Case C-22/01)
2.    Is the first paragraph of Article 3 of Decision
      2000/186/EC, under which the decision is to have                                           (2001/C 79/33)
      retroactive effect from 1 April 1999, valid?
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3.    Does Article 2 of Decision 2000/186/EC meet the                   ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      substantive requirements to be applied to such an author-         Communities on 18 January 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,
      isation, and do any objections to the validity of that            represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with
      provision arise as a consequence?                                 an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 1) OJ L 59 of 4.3.2000, p. 12.
                                                                        —     annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
                                                                              (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zone: IX,
                                                                              X, CECAF 34.1.1’ contained in Annex Id to Council
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 (1) of 15 December 2000
                                                                              fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated
                                                                              conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
                                                                              stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-
                                                                              munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are
                                                                              required; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Pisa — Sezione Lavoro — by order of that court of                       —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
19 December 2000 in the case of INPS v Alberto Barsotti
                             and Others
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-19/01)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                        forward in Case C-81/00 (2) except in so far as concerns the
                          (2001/C 79/32)                                TAC for anchovy fixed by the Council in Zone VIII which for
                                                                        2001 is of 33 000 metric tonnes.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Labour Division of              (1) OJ 2000 L 334, p. 1.
the Tribunale di Pisa (District Court, Pisa) of 19 December             (2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 4.
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of INPS v Alberto
Barsotti and Others, on the following question: