22 . 4 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 101 /21
 II. 1 . The applicant contests the Commission's factual              Action brought on 1 March 1995 by Viriato Monteiro
           and legal conclusions regarding its participation          da Silva against the Commission of the European
           in the alleged 'Cembureau agreement'. Those                                         Communities
          conclusions were based on insufficient evidence .
                                                                                (Case T-74/95 )
           According to the principles governing the liability
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /41 )
           of legal persons, the conduct complained of by the
           Commission      cannot    be    attributed   to   the
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
           applicant.
      2. The applicant contests the Commission's factual              An action against the Commission of the European
           and legal conclusions regarding an exchange                Communities was brought before the Court of First
           of information in relation to prices. The                  Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 1995 by
           dissemination of the average prices published by           Viriato Monteiro da Silva, residing in Brussels, represented
           the Federal Statistical Office, details of which are       by Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels
           freely available to the public at large, cannot            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
           constitute a restriction of competition. The               of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
           objections regarding the exchange of price
           information in the course of meetings are based on         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           insufficient evidence .
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Commission of 6 April 1994
      3 . The applicant contests the objection regarding                  fixing Brussels as the applicant's place of recruitment,
           participation in alleged 'agreements on the                    and
           participation of the market' between France and
           Germany. Those objections, which relate to alleged         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           agreements concerning the partition of the market
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           in Saarland and the general regulation of cement
           supplies between France and Germany, are not               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
           substantiated by the evidence adduced . Similarly,         relied on in Case T-33/95 .
           the objections regarding the exchange of statistical
           data between the SFIC and the applicant are based
           on erroneous assumptions of fact.
      4. The applicant did not participate in the alleged                   Removal from the register of Case T-503/93 ( l )
           activities of which the Commission complains
           regarding the Greek cement industry and/or the                                     ( 95/C 101 /42
           protection of the Italian market.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
III. The applicant objects that the imposition of a fine is
      inadmissible, since no intentional or negligent act on          By order of 7 March 1995 the President of the Second
      the part of any representative or employee appointed            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      by law or in accordance with its statutes, or any other         Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      person authorized by it, can be attributed to the               T-503/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio v. Commission of the European
      applicant.                                                      Communities .
                                                                      (M OJ No C 272, 8 . 10 . 1993 .


C 146/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    21.6.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-192/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/60)                                                       (2003/C 146/63)
By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-192/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                            Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-149/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-343/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/61)                                                       (2003/C 146/64)
By order of 6 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-149/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-343/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.                             Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-155/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-363/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/62)                                                       (2003/C 146/65)
By order of 10 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 3 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-155/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-363/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                    Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-134/06: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-134/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/51)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-579/12 RX: Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 11 December 2012 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/6

         Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 11 December 2012 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack
   (Case C-579/12 RX)
   (2013/C 71/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

      Appellant: European Commission

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack

      Questions to be reviewed

   The review shall concern the questions whether – having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the entitlement to paid annual leave as a principle of European Union social law, which is also expressly affirmed in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is covered in particular by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) – the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2012 in Case T 268/11 P Commission v Strack affects the unity or consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court:

               —

               interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and

               —

               consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.

         The persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the parties to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union are invited to lodge their written observations on those questions at the Court of Justice of the European Union within one month of the service of the present decision.


title: Case C-501/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2013 by Page Protective Services Ltd against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2013 in Case T-221/13 Page Protective Services Ltd v European External Action Service (EEAS)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/17

         Appeal brought on 18 September 2013 by Page Protective Services Ltd against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2013 in Case T-221/13 Page Protective Services Ltd v European External Action Service (EEAS)
   (Case C-501/13 P)
   2014/C 421/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Page Protective Services Ltd (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, avocat, and E. Lock, solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)
   By order of 2 October 2014, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Page Protective Services Ltd to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-331/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — Azarov v Council

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/62

         Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-331/14)
   2014/C 223/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Prescribe, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, measures of organisation of procedure;

               —

               Order the Council, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the statement of reasons for the contested acts do not make it possible either for him to challenge those acts before the Court or for the Court to review their legality.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the right to exercise an economic activity. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the Council misused its powers because the imposition of restrictive measures against him predominantly pursued objectives other than those of actually consolidating and supporting the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of good administration
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of infringement of the right to impartial treatment, infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment.


title: Case F-5/07: Action brought on 21 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/44

         Action brought on 21 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-5/07)
   (2007/C 56/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Belgium) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision to appoint the applicant's superior to his current post;

               —

               annul the result, so far as it concerns the applicant, of competition CC/LA/1/99 and all connected and/or subsequent decisions;

               —

               annul the decision of the polling office of the Court Auditors to reject the applicant's challenge to the ballot of 2, 3, and 4 May 2006;

               —

               annul the result of the Court Auditors' Staff Committee elections of 2, 3 and 4 May 2006 and all connected and subsequent decisions;

               —

               annul the decisions not to promote the applicant, and to promote Mr X, in 2006;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant argues, inter alia, that: (i) the Appointing Authority's decisions were vitiated by a failure to give relevant reasons; (ii) the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors acted unlawfully in his capacity as Appointing Authority when he rejected the applicant's complaints, inasmuch as he had a personal interest such as to impair his independence; (iii) the Appointing Authority has performed its duties unlawfully since 1984; (iv) the applicant's superior performed his duties unlawfully; in breach inter alia of Article 7 and Article 11a (ex Article 14) of the Staff Regulations; (v) competition CC/LA/1/99 was prejudiced by a number of illegalities, for which there is new evidence; (vi) the 2006 Staff Committee elections are unlawful on a number of grounds; (vii) the promotion of Mr X stems from the interest of the applicant's hierarchical superior in obstructing the applicant's career.


title: Case T-473/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Corporación Alimentaria Guissona and Naviera Muriola v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/47

         Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Corporación Alimentaria Guissona and Naviera Muriola v Commission
   (Case T-473/14)
   2014/C 261/75
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Corporación Alimentaria Guissona, SA (Lleida, Spain); and Naviera Muriola, AIE (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-309/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — Olbek Industrial Services sp. z.o.o.; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — Olbek Industrial Services sp. z.o.o.; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Case C-309/09)
   2009/C 267/64
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Olbek Industrial Services sp. z o.o.

      Other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 49 EC and 50 EC be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which a work permit is required for the hiring-out of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC? (1)

               2.

               On the basis of what criteria should it be determined whether workers have been hired out within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-136/02 P: Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional torch shapes — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-136/02 P: Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional torch shapes - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character)
   (2004/C 300/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-136/02 P: Appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged at the Court on 8 April 2002, Mag Instrument Inc. established in Ontario, California (United States of America) (Agents: initially A. Nette, G. Rahn, W. von der Osten-Sacken and H. Stratmann, and subsequently W. von der Osten-Sacken, U. Hocke and A. Spranger, Rechtsanwälte), the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Agent: D. Schennen) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mag Instrument Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Case T-724/14: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — European Children's Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ — ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project — Action for annulment — Act not subject to appeal — Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable — Inadmissibility — Ineligible expenditure — Reimbursement of the sums paid — Audit report)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — European Children's Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA
   (Case T-724/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ - ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project - Action for annulment - Act not subject to appeal - Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable - Inadmissibility - Ineligible expenditure - Reimbursement of the sums paid - Audit report))
   (2016/C 419/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (Valencia, Spain) and Instituto de Economía Pública (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration that the first application is not required to reimburse the sum paid to it by EACEA under the agreement for the execution of the ‘Brand & Merchandising Manager for SMEs in the Children’s Product Sector’ project, or, in the alternative, application for annulment, firstly, of EACEA’s pre-information letter of 1 August 2014 informing the first applicant that it had to reimburse the sum of EUR 82 378,81 following the audit of the that project and, secondly, of debit note No 3241401420, issued by EACEA on 5 August 2014, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case C-241/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
   (Case C-241/06) (1)

   (Public contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Limitation period - Principle of effectiveness)
   (2007/C 297/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lämmerzahl GmbH

      Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht — Interpretation of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — No right to review of a decision of the contracting authority awarding a contract the estimated value of which does not exceed EUR 200 000 — All objections time-barred as a result of a wrong estimate of the contract price at the time of publication of the notice of invitation to tender.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               In accordance with Article 9(4) of and Annex IV to Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, the contract notice concerning a contract within the scope of that directive must state the total quantity or scope of that contract. The absence of such an indication must be capable of being reviewed under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts;

               2)

               Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, particularly Article 1(1) and (3), precludes a limitation period laid down by national law from being applied in such a way that a tenderer is refused access to a review concerning the choice of procedure for awarding a public contract or the estimate of the value of that contract, where the contracting authority has not clearly stated the total quantity or scope of the contract to the person concerned. Those provisions of the directive also preclude such a rule from being extended generally to cover the review of decisions of the contracting authority, including those occurring in stages of an award procedure after the end of that limitation period.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-503/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Single payment scheme — Key controls — Ancillary controls)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-503/12) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Single payment scheme - Key controls - Ancillary controls))
   (2015/C 346/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, and finally by M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by D. Wyatt QC, and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Donnelly, P. Rossi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/500/EU of 6 September 2012 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 244, p. 11), as regards four entries in the Annex to the decision relating to a 5 % flat-rate correction applied to expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in the financial years 2008, amounting to EUR 277 231,60 and EUR 13 671 588,90, and 2009, amounting to EUR 270 398,26 and EUR 15 844 193,29.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-549/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Horno del Espinar (Castello) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Castello — Earlier national and EU figurative marks Castelló — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
   (Case T-549/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Castello - Earlier national and EU figurative marks Castelló - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Geroulakos and D. Botis, subsequently by D. Botis and lastly by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar and Lidl Stiftung & Co.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, SL and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG insofar as the Board of Appeal held that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards the frozen fruit and vegetables in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

               4.

               Orders EUIPO to bear one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-591/13: Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Canal + and Canal + France v OHIM — Euronews (News+)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/12

         Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Canal + and Canal + France v OHIM — Euronews (News+)
   (Case T-591/13)
   2014/C 31/21
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Canal + SA (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) and Canal + France (Issy-Les-Moulineaux) (represented by: L. Barissat, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euronews (Ecully, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               rule that there is a likelihood of confusion or association within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 between the trade mark applied for, NEWS+, and the earlier French word mark ACTU+ No 063 457 667 in respect of the contested services;

               —

               amend paragraphs 23 to 35 of the decision of the Board of Appeal dated 9 September 2013 and refuse registration of the mark NEWS+, applied for in application No 9 141 003;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 9 September 2013, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the contested decision rejecting the opposition filed against the application for a Community trade mark NEWS+ No 9 141 003 on the basis of the earlier mark ACTU+ No 063 457 667.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Euronews

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘News+’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 141 003

      Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicants

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark ‘ACTU+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28, 35, 38, 39 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


               7.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/27

         Action brought on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway
   (Case E-10/10)
   2010/C 271/07
   An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Acts referred to at point 1 and at point 1, indent 2, of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications) each as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA;

               2.

               The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Norway to comply with a reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the failure to adopt, or to notify the Authority of the measures necessary to fully implement the EEA Act corresponding to European Union Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications as amended.

               —

               The outstanding Norwegian measures concern amendments of a number of national regulations on the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in other EEA States.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from the Norwegian government indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly.

               —

               The Norwegian government has not disputed the delay in fully implementing the Act.


title: Case T-518/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Ecoceane v EMSA (Public service contracts — Tendering procedures — Operation of stand-by oil spill recovery vessels — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Ecoceane v EMSA
   (Case T-518/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedures - Operation of stand-by oil spill recovery vessels - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
   2013/C 325/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecoceane (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Spalter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: J. Menze, Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of EMSA’s decision of 28 October 2009 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure EMSA/NEG/1/2009, relating to the conclusion of public service contracts for stand-by oil spill recovery vessels (Lot No 2: Atlantic/Channel), and of the decision awarding the contract to another tenderer; and (ii) damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ecoceane to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-291/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 15 June 2007 — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 15 June 2007 — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket
   (Case C-291/07)
   (2007/C 183/46)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet

      Defendant: Skatteverket
   Question referred
   Are Articles 9(2)(e) and 21(1)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) and Articles 56(1)(c) and 196 of the Council Directive on a common system of value added tax (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who purchases consultancy services from a person liable to tax in another EC country and carries out both economic activity and also activity which falls outside the scope of the Directives is to be regarded as a taxable person/person liable to tax where those articles are applied, even though the purchase was made solely in respect of the latter activity?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-688/16: Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Janssen-Cases v Commission

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/32

         Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Janssen-Cases v Commission
   (Case T-688/16)
   (2016/C 410/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mercedes Janssen-Cases (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Commission of 15 June 2016 to fill the post of the Commission’s mediator by the appointment of another candidate and those rejecting the applicant’s application for that post;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of one hundred thousand euros as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) of Commission Decision C (2002) 601 of 4 March 2002 on the reinforced Mediation Service, since the contested decisions were adopted by the Commission, while its President is alone competent to adopt those decisions, on a proposal from the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General following an opinion of the Staff Committee.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establishes the workers’ right to information and consultation, in the present case the right to actual consultation of the Commission staff committee.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an abuse of power by the Commission in the procedures implemented in order to fill the post of the Commission’s mediator.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and sound administration.


title: Case T-231/10: Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Merlin and Others v OHIM — Dusyma (Games)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/43

         Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Merlin and Others v OHIM — Dusyma (Games)
   (Case T-231/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Forchtenberg, Germany), Rolf Krämer (Forchtenberg), BLS Basteln, Lernen, Spielen GmbH (Forchtenberg), Andreas Hohl (Künzelsau, Germany), represented by: R. Kramer, lawyer

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dusyma Kindergartenbedarf GmbH (Schorndorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2010 in Case R 879/2009-3 and declare Community design No 526 801-0011 invalid;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 526 801-0011 for the products ‘Games (including educational games)’.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Dusyma Kindergartenbedarf GmbH.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the Applicants.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) on Community designs, because the Board of Appeal misinterpreted the provisions of that article concerning definitions and did not take into consideration the fact that a Community design can also consist in the appearance of a part of a product.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Case T-374/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/16

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)
   (Case T-374/12)
   2012/C 343/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in Case R 2551/2010-2;

               —

               order OHIM and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark incorporating the word element ‘KASTEEL’ for goods in Class 32 — International registration No W 975 635

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark ‘CASTEL BEER’ for goods in Class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 1998 in Case C-324/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio, Echinos): Odette Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE v. Athanasia Simou and Others (Common organisation of the markets - Raw tobacco - System of maximum guaranteed quantities - Validity of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1114/88, (EEC) No 1251/89 and (EEC) No 1252/89 and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2046/90)

text:
4.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 209/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  harvest, the quantity actually produced and the prices and
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                premiums payable under the system of maximum
                                                                     guaranteed quantities (OJ L 187 of 19.7.1990, p. 23), as
                     of 26 March 1998                                well as on the interpretation of the second paragraph of
in Case C-324/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            clause 8 of the cultivation contract set out in the annex to
the Irinodikio, Echinos): Odette Nikou Petridi Anonymos              Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4263/88 of
   Kapnemboriki AE v. Athanasia Simou and Others (1)                 21 December 1988 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1726/
                                                                     70 on the procedure for granting the premium for leaf
(Common organisation of the markets Ð Raw tobacco Ð                  tobacco (OJ L 376 of 31.12.1988, p. 34) Ð the
System of maximum guaranteed quantities Ð Validity                   Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1114/88, (EEC)                       President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
No 1251/89 and (EEC) No 1252/89 and of Commission                    (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P.
               Regulation (EEC) No 2046/90)                          Jann, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                       (98/C 209/01)                                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     26 March 1998, in which it has ruled:
               (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                     1. Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no
                                                                         factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1114/88 of 25 April
         published in the European Court Reports)                        1988 amending Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 on the
                                                                         common organisation of the market in raw tobacco.
In Case C-324/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Irinodikio (Small Claims                   2. Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no
Court), Echinos (Greece), for a preliminary ruling in the                factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of
proceedings pending before that court between Odette                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1251/89 of 3 May 1989
Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE and Athanasia                     amending Regulation No 727/70 and of Council
Simou and Others Ð on the validity of Council                            Regulation (EEC) No 1252/89 of 3 May 1989 fixing,
Regulation (EEC) No 1114/88 of 25 April 1988 amending                    for the 1989 harvest, the norm and intervention prices
Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 on the common organisation                    and the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf
of the market in raw tobacco (OJ L 110 of 29.4.1988,                     tobacco, the derived intervention prices for baled
p. 35), Council Regulation (EEC) No 1251/89 of 3 May                     tobacco, the reference qualities, the production areas
1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 (OJ L 129                       and the guaranteed maximum quantities and
of 11.5.1989, p. 16), Council Regulation (EEC) No 1252/                  amending Regulations (EEC) No 1577/86, (EEC)
89 of 3 May 1989 fixing, for the 1989 harvest, the norm                  No 1975/87 and (EEC) No 2268/88.
and intervention prices and the premiums granted to
purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices          3. Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no
for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, the production               factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of
areas and the guaranteed maximum quantities and                          Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2046/90 of 18 July
amending Regulations (EEC) No 1577/86, (EEC) No 1975/                    1990 determining, for tobacco from the 1989 harvest,
87 and (EEC) No 2268/88 (OJ L 129 of 11.5.1989, p. 17),                  the quantity actually produced and the prices and
and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2046/90 of                         premiums payable under the system of maximum
18 July 1990 determining, for tobacco from the 1989                      guaranteed quantities.
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4.7.98
4. Although a processing undertaking is required to repay            (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/
     the amounts corresponding to the reduction in prices            MdK/Treuhand) (OJ L 186 of 21.7.1994, p. 38) in so far
     and the premium decided on pursuant to Article 4(5)             as it makes the declaration that the concentration is
     of Regulation No 727/70, as amended, the second                 compatible with the common market conditional on
     paragraph of clause 8 of the cultivation contract set           compliance with the conditions set out in point 63 of the
     out in the annex to Regulation No 4263/88 allows, in            decision, and for partial annulment of that decision in so
     such a case, the contract price to be renegotiated              far as it accepted the commitment referred to in point 65
     between the processing undertaking and the tobacco              by which Kali und Salz AG undertook to adapt the
     producers in line with the reduction in the prices and          structure of Potacan by 30 June 1994 Ð the Court,
     premium.                                                        composed of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
                                                                     Gulmann (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Presidents of
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.                                          Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
                                                                     Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,
                                                                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 31 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Annuls Commission Decision 94/449/EC of 14
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         December 1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                      of 31 March 1998                                   Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/
                                                                         M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/MdK/Treuhand).
in Joined Cases C-68/94 French Republic v. Commission
of the European Communities, supported by Federal
Republic of Germany, and C-30/95: SocieÂteÂ Commerciale              2. In Case C-68/94, orders the Commission of the
des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA) and Entreprise MinieÁre                European Communities to pay the costs.
et Chimique (EMC), supported by French Republic v.
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
Kali und Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-                   3. In Case C-30/95, orders the Commission of the
                             AG (1)                                      European Communities to pay the costs, and Kali und
                                                                         Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG to bear
(Community        control    of     concentrations     between           their own costs.
        undertakings Ð Collective dominant position)
                        (98/C 209/02)                                4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, which
                                                                         intervened in Case C-68/94, and the French Republic,
                (Language of the case: French)                           which intervened in Case C-30/95, to bear their own
                                                                         costs.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (1) OJ C 120 of 30.4.1994.
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-68/94: French Republic (Agents: Edwige
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey) v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Berend
Jan Drijber, assisted by Jacques Bourgeois), supported by                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and                                        of 2 April 1998
Bernd Kloke) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/449/EC of 14 December 1993 relating to a                 in Case C-296/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                      the Court of Appeal, England and Wales): The Queen v.
No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/MdK/                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU
Treuhand) (OJ L 186 of 21.7.1994, p. 38) and C-30/95:                Tabac SARL, The Man in Black Limited and John
SocieÂteÂ Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA)                   Cunningham, intervener: Imperial Tobacco Ltd (1)
and Entreprise MinieÁre et Chimique (EMC), represented               (Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general
by Charles Price of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong,                the holding, movement and monitoring of such products
14A Rue des Bains, supported by French Republic                      Ð Member State in which duty is payable Ð Purchase
(Agents: Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and                                          through an agent)
Jean-Marc Belorgey) v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber, assisted by                                          (98/C 209/03)
Jacques Bourgeois), supported by Kali und Salz GmbH
and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG, represented by                                   (Language of the case: English)
Karlheinz Quack and Georg Albrechtskirchinger Ð
application for partial annulment of Article 1 of
Commission Decision 94/449/EC on 14 December 1993                    In Case C-296/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation              of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal, England and


title: Case T-746/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Biofa v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/46

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Biofa v Commission
   (Case T-746/15)
   (2016/C 059/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biofa AG (Münsingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Stallberg and S. Knoblich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate (OJ 2015 L 301, p. 42);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of data protection
               The applicant’s data on its plant protection product VitiSan® is eligible for data protection under Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (1). The use of that data for approving sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance therefore infringes the applicant’s data protection rights.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the subsidiarity principle in the approval procedure for basic substances
               The approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance infringes the subsidiarity principle in matter of plant protection since, by means of the applicant’s plant protection product VitiSan®, which contains the active ingredient potassium bicarbonate, an approved plant protection product with a similar active substance is available.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the priority principle in the approval procedure for basic substances
               According to the priority principle, the approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as an active ingredient applied for by the applicant precludes the approval of the substance as a basic substance.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: interference with the applicant’s right of ownership
               The unlawful use of the applicant’s data for the approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance interferes with its intellectual property rights under Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the protection of confidential commercial information
               The unlawful use of the applicant’s data for the approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance also infringes the protection of confidential commercial information under Article 7 of the Charter.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of the general principle of equal treatment
               The unlawful use of the applicant’s data for the approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance also infringes the principle of equal treatment. Whereas the applicant was obliged to lay out significant investments for the data necessary for approval, the defendant used that data to the benefit of third parties, who did not bear such costs.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               Lastly, the unlawful use of the applicant’s data for the approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance leads to an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant was entitled to expect that its data on the plant protection product VitiSan® would be used only in accordance with the principles of data protection.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).


title: Case C-84/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/51/EEC — Recognition of diplomas — Studies completed in an independent study centre not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State — Optician)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-84/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas - Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State - Optician)
   (2009/C 19/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Stølvbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3, 4(1)(b) and 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209, p. 25)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Hellenic Republic,

                           —

                           by failing to recognise the optician diplomas granted by the competent Italian authorities following training given under an agreement pursuant to which training given in Greece by a private body is homologised by those authorities;

                           —

                           by making consideration of applications for recognition of Italian optician diplomas subject to the provision, by the Italian authorities, of the answers to five questions previously sent to them by the Greek authorities; and

                           —

                           by allowing applicants for recognition of Italian optician diplomas, who applied before entry into force of Law 2916/2001 on the structure of university or similar education and the regulation of questions on the technological sector of that education, no choice between an adaptation period and an aptitude test,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, the third section of Article 4(1)(b) and Article 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-110/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC) and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Exclusive right of reproduction — Exceptions and limitations — Article 5(2)(b) — Private copying exception — Fair compensation — Conclusion of agreements governed by private law to determine the criteria for exemption from payment of fair compensation — Request for reimbursement of compensation confined to the final user)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC) and Others
   (Case C-110/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive right of reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Fair compensation - Conclusion of agreements governed by private law to determine the criteria for exemption from payment of fair compensation - Request for reimbursement of compensation confined to the final user))
   (2016/C 419/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA, Hewlett-Packard Italiana Srl, Telecom Italia SpA, Samsung Electronics Italia SpA, Dell SpA, Fastweb SpA, Sony Mobile Communications Italy SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

      Defendants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC), Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE), Istituto per la tutela dei diritti degli artisti interpreti esecutori (IMAIE), in liquidation, Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali (ANICA), Associazione produttori televisivi (APT)

      Interveners: Assotelecomunicazioni (Asstel), Vodafone Omnitel NV, H3G SpA, Movimento Difesa del Cittadino, Assoutenti, Adiconsum, Cittadinanza Attiva, Altroconsumo

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law, in particular, Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that, on the one hand, subjects exemption from payment of the private copying levy for producers and importers of devices and media intended for use clearly unrelated to private copying to the conclusion of agreements between an entity which has a legal monopoly on the representation of the interests of authors of works, and those liable to pay compensation, or their trade associations, and, on the other hand, provides that the reimbursement of such a levy, where it has been unduly paid, may be requested only by the final user of those devices and media.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case C-47/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Kronos International Inc. v Finanzamt Leverkusen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Legislation of a Member State designed to eliminate double taxation of distributed profits — Imputation method applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in the same Member State as the company receiving them — Exemption method applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in a different Member State from the company receiving them or in a third State — Difference in treatment of losses of the company receiving the dividends)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Kronos International Inc. v Finanzamt Leverkusen
   (Case C-47/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Legislation of a Member State designed to eliminate double taxation of distributed profits - Imputation method applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in the same Member State as the company receiving them - Exemption method applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in a different Member State from the company receiving them or in a third State - Difference in treatment of losses of the company receiving the dividends))
   2014/C 409/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kronos International Inc.

      Defendant: Finanzamt Leverkusen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The compatibility with EU law of national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which a company resident in a Member State cannot set off corporation tax paid in another Member State or in a third State by capital companies distributing dividends, because of the exemption of those dividends from tax in the first Member State when they stem from shareholdings representing at least 10 % of the capital of the company making the distribution and, in the case in point, the actual shareholding of the capital company receiving the dividends exceeds 90 % and the recipient company has been incorporated in accordance with the law of a third State, must be assessed in the light of Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU;

               2.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding application of the exemption method to dividends distributed by companies resident in other Member States and in third States, when the imputation method is applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in the same Member State as the company receiving them and, if the latter company records losses, the imputation method results in the tax paid by the resident company that made the distribution being fully or partially refunded.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-225/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social n° 3 de Orense): Rosa García Blanco v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Social security of migrant workers — Old age — Unemployment — Minimum periods of insurance — Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits — Periods of unemployment — Aggregation)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-225/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense): Rosa García Blanco v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)

   (Social security of migrant workers - Old age - Unemployment - Minimum periods of insurance - Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits - Periods of unemployment - Aggregation)
   (2005/C 57/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-225/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense (Spain), made by decision of 30 March 2002, received at the Court on 17 June 2002, in the proceedings between Rosa García Blanco and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
   There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-225/02.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002


title: Case F-26/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014  — Cerafogli v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Access of ECB staff to documents connected with their employment relationship — Rules applicable to requests from ECB staff — Pre-litigation procedure — Rule of correspondence — Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action — Admissibility — Right to effective judicial protection — Consultation of the Staff Committee for the purpose of adopting rules applicable to requests from ECB staff for access to documents connected with their employment relationship)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case F-26/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - ECB staff - Access of ECB staff to documents connected with their employment relationship - Rules applicable to requests from ECB staff - Pre-litigation procedure - Rule of correspondence - Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action - Admissibility - Right to effective judicial protection - Consultation of the Staff Committee for the purpose of adopting rules applicable to requests from ECB staff for access to documents connected with their employment relationship))
   2014/C 421/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, E. Carlini and S. Lambrinoc, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the ECB’s decision refusing to grant the applicant access to documents, and a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 21 June 2011 whereby the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Human Resources, Budget and Organisation of the European Central Bank partially rejected the request for access to certain documents submitted by Ms Cerafogli on 20 May 2011;

               2.

               Orders the European Central Bank to pay Ms Cerafogli EUR 1  000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the European Central Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Ms Cerafogli.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.


title: Case C-377/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — EGN BV — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Roma 2 (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(3)(a) — Deductibility and refunding of input VAT — Provision of telecommunications services — Supply of services for a customer established in another Member State — Article 9(2)(e) — Determination of the place where the service is provided)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — EGN BV — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Roma 2
   (Case C-377/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(3)(a) - Deductibility and refunding of input VAT - Provision of telecommunications services - Supply of services for a customer established in another Member State - Article 9(2)(e) - Determination of the place where the service is provided)
   2009/C 205/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EGN BV — Filiale Italiana

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Roma 2

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 17(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Supply of cross-border telecommunications services — Right of the supplier of such services to deduct input tax, as permitted under the domestic regime

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that a supplier of telecommunications services such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which is established in the territory of a Member State, is entitled under that provision to deduct or obtain a refund in that Member State of input value added tax on telecommunications services that have been supplied to an undertaking having its principal place of business in another Member State, since such a supplier would have had that right if the services at issue had been supplied in the territory of the former Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-76/13: Action brought on 12 February 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/11

         Action brought on 12 February 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-76/13)
   2013/C 123/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Braun and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-154/09 European Commission v Portuguese Republic [2010] ECR I-127;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 43 264,64 per day of its failure to comply with the judgment in Case C-154/09, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the defendant has complied in full with the judgment in Case C-154/09;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the Commission a fine of a fixed rate of EUR 5 277,3 per day of its failure to comply, from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-154/09 until:

                           —

                           the date of compliance with that judgment, in the event that the Court of Justice determines that the Portuguese Republic has complied with it before the judgment in the present case is delivered;

                           —

                           the date of delivery of the judgment in this case, in the event that it finds that the judgment in Case C-154/09 has not been complied with prior to the delivery of the judgment in the present case;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese Republic is yet to designate the undertakings which are to provide the universal service in accordance with Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of the Universal Service Directive. (1) Moreover, the Portuguese Lei das Comunicações Eletrónicas (Law on electronic communications) still provides for the maintenance of all of the obligations set out in the basic concession rules for the provision of public telecommunications services approved by Decree-Law No 31/2003, pursuant to which the provision of the universal service in entrusted to PT Comunicações by means of a concession contract which is valid until 2025. For the purposes of the fine, the Commission proposes that the Court determine a coefficient of 7 on a scale of 1 to 20.
   The infringement at issue jeopardises the attainment of the fundamental objectives of competition law in relation to the liberalisation of the telecommunications market, in addition to contravening fundamental principles of European Union law, such as the principle of non-discrimination. Moreover, the infringement at issue calls into question the efficiency of the universal service, which is one of the main objectives of telecommunications law. In this instance, a concession was granted to Portugal Telecom without any form of public or restricted tender procedure being organised and, consequently, without guaranteeing that the universal service is provided in the best conditions in terms of cost effectiveness, and without guaranteeing competition by minimising market distortions.

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).


title: Case C-110/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2011 — Minister van Financiën, interested party: G. in ’t Veld

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2011 — Minister van Financiën, interested party: G. in ’t Veld
   (Case C-110/11)
   2011/C 160/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister van Financiën

      Interested party: G. in ‘t Veld

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the designation rules in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) applicable in a case such as the present, where an employed person with Netherlands nationality residing in Spain is employed as a seafarer by an employer established in the Netherlands, subject to Netherlands labour law, and carries out his work on board seagoing ships which navigate outside the territory of the Community under the flag of the Netherlands Antilles, with the result that the legislation of the Netherlands is designated as the legislation applicable, so that consequently Netherlands national insurance contributions may be levied, whereas judging solely on the basis of the national legislation of the Netherlands he is not affiliated to the Netherlands social security scheme as a result of the fact that he does not reside in the Netherlands?

               2.

               To what extent is it important in that regard that in the implementation of the Netherlands employed persons’ insurance scheme a policy is followed by virtue of which seafarers in a case such as the present are considered by the implementing body to be insured persons on the basis of Community law?

               3.

               To what extent is it important in that regard that the activities are carried out occasionally in the territorial sea of a Member State or in a port in the territory of a Member State?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, p. 2).


title: Case T-149/10: Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/42

         Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission
   (Case T-149/10)
   2010/C 148/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (Icheon-si, Korea) (represented by: A. Woodgate and O. Heinisch, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2010) 150 dated 15 January 2010;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision C(2010) 150 rejecting, for lack of the Community interest, the applicant’s complaint regarding alleged violations by Rambus of Articles 102 TFUE in connection with claiming of potentially abusive royalties for the use of certain patents for “Dynamic Random Access Memory” (DRAM) (Case COMP/38.636 — Rambus) following the Commission decision of 9 December 2009 by which it made binding upon Rambus certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.
   First, it submits that the Commission violated essential procedural requirements by not granting the applicant sufficient access to relevant documents.
   Second, the applicant argues that there remains strong community interest in pursuing its complaint. It submits that the Commission based its rejection decision exclusively on the fact that there is no longer community interest given that it adopted the Article 9 decision. In the applicant’s view, in this case the position and reasoning adopted by the Commission makes the question of Community interest and the validity of the rejection decision intrinsically linked to the validity of the Article 9 decision which is contested by the applicant in Case T-148/10.
   Third, fourth and fifth plea raised by the applicant are identical to the first, second and third plea that it puts forward in Case T-148/10 and concern the alleged violations committed by the Commission when adopting the Article 9 decision making binding upon Rambus certain commitments.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-171/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk v Productschap Vee en Vlees (Beef and veal — Early marketing premium for calves — Time-limit for lodging premium applications — Rules for calculating time-limit — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-171/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk v Productschap Vee en Vlees (1)

   (Beef and veal - Early marketing premium for calves - Time-limit for lodging premium applications - Rules for calculating time-limit - Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92)
   (2005/C 6/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-171/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 April 2003, received at the Court on 14 April 2003, in the proceedings between Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk, trading as ‘Verberk-Voeten’, and Productschap Vee en Vlees — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

                           (a)

                           Article 3(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time-limits is to be interpreted as meaning that a period expressed in weeks, such as that laid down by Article 50a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, ends with the expiry of the last hour of whichever day in the last week is the same day of the week as the day on which the slaughter took place.

                           (b)

                           When applying Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92, a Member State may not establish the time at which a premium application was lodged pursuant to national procedural rules which apply within its national legal system to comparable, national periods for making applications.

                           (c)

                           Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92 must be interpreted as meaning that a premium application may be regarded as having been ‘lodged’ in due time only if the competent authority received it prior to the expiry of the time-limit.

               2.

               Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 50a(1) of Regulation No 3886/92 to the extent that it excludes the applicant from receiving the premium entirely whenever the period for making applications is exceeded, irrespective of how and by what extent.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.