title: Case T-553/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Joint undertaking Fusion for Energy (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support — Rejection of the tender of one tenderer and award of the contracts to other tenderers — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Joint undertaking Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-553/13) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support - Rejection of the tender of one tenderer and award of the contracts to other tenderers - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 027/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Mabger and I. Ampazis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented: initially by H. Jahreiss, R. Hanak, A. Verpont, I. Costin and A. Nagy, and subsequently by R. Hanak, A. Verpont, I. Costin and A. Nagy, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 7 August 2013 taken in the context of the tendering procedure F4E-ADM-0464 concerning IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support services (OJ 2012/S 213-352451) rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and awarding the contracts to other tenderers, and (ii) an award of damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-279/11: Action brought on 30 May 2011 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares/Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/33

         Action brought on 30 May 2011 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares/Commission
   (Case T-279/11)
   2011/C 232/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: T&L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application for annulment under Article 263(4) TFUE and/or plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE against Regulation 222/2011, Regulation 293/2011, Regulation 302/2001 and Regulation 393/2011 admissible and well founded;

               —

               Annulment of Regulation 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011;

               —

               Annulment of Regulation 293/2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy;

               —

               Annulment of Regulation 302/2001 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year; and

               —

               Annulment of Regulation 393/2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences;

               —

               In the alternative, declare the plea of illegality against Articles 186(a) and 187 of Regulation 1234/2007 admissible and well founded and declare those provisions illegal, as well as annul the contested regulations, which are directly or indirectly based on those provisions;

               —

               Condemn the EU as represented by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the Commission’s breach of its legal obligations and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the Applicants during the period 1 October 2009 to 31 March 2011 at 35,485,746 EUR plus any ongoing losses suffered by the Applicants after that date or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the Applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage;

               —

               Order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by your Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of your Court’s judgement until actual payment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Regulation No 1234/2007 (1) and absence of adequate legal basis. In violation of Regulation No 1234/2007, the contested Regulation No 222/2011 effectively increases the production quotas granted to domestic producers. According to the applicants, the commission has no such power and is explicitly mandated to reduce production quotas. Yet to achieve an equivalent result, and not withstanding the Commission’s legal obligation to impose a surplus levy at a dissuasive level, Regulation No 222/2011 illegally sets the surplus levy on out-of-quota sugar at 0 EUR. Moreover in seeking to correct market disturbances caused by a shortfall of imports, both Regulation No 222/2011 and Regulation No 302/2011 ignore the priority legally granted under Regulation No 1234/2007 to import measures and full-time refiners.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the non-discrimination principle. The applicants submit that despite the chemical identity of cane and beet based sugar, the contested regulations favour domestic producers to the detriment of importing refiners.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality. The contested regulations are aimed at tackling a shortage on the EU sugar market caused by a deficit of imported raw cane sugar. However, instead of remedying the problem by allowing the necessary imports of raw cane sugar, they increased the possibilities of domestic sugar production. As a result they are manifestly inappropriate and disproportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations. According to the applicants, the Commission gave repeated assurances that it will not increase the production quota and will maintain the balance between stakeholders. The contested regulations were however clearly designed to favour domestic production at the expense of importing refiners.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of diligence, care and good administration. The applicants submit that the Commission failed in the first instance to act at all, despite repeated warnings of market disturbances, then went on to adopt manifestly inappropriate measures to tackle those disturbances, and in doing so upset the balance established by the Council between the different market operators.

         The applicants invoke the above grounds for annulment also against Regulation No 222/2011 and Regulation No 302/2011 as a plea of illegality on the basis of Article 277 TFUE. In the alternative, the applicants raise also a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE against Articles 186a and 187 of Regulation No 1234/2007, on which the contested regulations are based

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ L 299, p. 1).


title: Case T-128/08: Action brought on 25 March 2008 — CBI and Abisp v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/30

         Action brought on 25 March 2008 — CBI and Abisp v Commission
   (Case T-128/08)
   (2008/C 142/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Coordination Bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Association Bruxelloise des Institutions de Soins Privées (Abisp) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 January 2008 rejecting their complaint made on 7 September and 17 October 2005 against the State aid granted by the Kingdom of Belgium to public hospitals of the IRIS network in the Brussels-Capital Region and refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid in question pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.
   The applicants submit, first of all, that the contested decision is vitiated by procedural defects inasmuch as it should have been adopted by the Commission as a body, addressed to the Member State concerned, and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   As to the merits, the applicants submit that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and failed to fulfil its obligations to state reasons in taking the view that the measures in question were compatible with Article 86(2) EC and that it was not necessary to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.
   The applicants claim that the conditions for the application of Article 86(2) EC are not satisfied in this case, since:

               —

               the public-service mission of the hospitals receiving the aid is not clearly defined;

               —

               the compensation criteria have not been established in advance;

               —

               the compensation exceeds the costs incurred; and

               —

               no comparison has been made between the hospitals receiving the aid and comparable private hospitals.

         The applicants further submit that the directive on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1) has not been complied with in the present case.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17).


title: Joined Cases T-75/04 and T-77/04 to T-79/04: Judgment of the General Court of (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — Health policy — Placing on the market of biocidal products — Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/11

         Judgment of the General Court of (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-75/04 and T-77/04 to T-79/04) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Health policy - Placing on the market of biocidal products - Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, Connecticut, United States) and Arch Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom) (Case T-75/04); Rhodia UK Ltd, formerly Rhodia Consumer Specialties Ltd (Watford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (Case T-77/04); Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) (Case T-78/04); Troy Chemical Co. BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (Case T-79/04); (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, and subsequently by P. Oliver and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (Brussels, Belgium) represented: initially by M. Bronckers, Y. van Gerven and P. Charro, and subsequently by Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by A. Neergaard and M. Moore, and subsequently by A. Neergaard and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents); Council of the European Union (represented: initially by B. Hoff-Nielsen, M. Sims and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently by M. Sims and F. Florindo Gijón, and finally by F. Florindo Gijón and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented: initially by S. Terstal, and subsequently by H. Sevenster, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Article 3, Article 4(2), Article 5(3), the second subparagraph of Article 10(2), Article 11(3), Article 13, Article 14(2) of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission including, in the case of Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc, those relating to the application for interim relief;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case F-83/13: Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/69

         Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-83/13)
   2013/C 344/128
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Joassart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision, notified by electronic mail of 1 February 2013, taken by the Head of Unit at the (O.I.B) Office of Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels to remove the applicant from her duties as a nurse and to assign her to the ‘biberonnerie’ (baby feeding unit) from 4 February 2013.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-234/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 25 May 2000, in the case of The Queen against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons Ltd

text:
C 247/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                     joint missions or reports of missions undertaken by the
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division                           Member States sent to the Centre, and to the list of
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 25 May 2000, in                   contact persons in the Member States involved with
the case of The Queen against the Minister of Agriculture,                  asylum cases; orders the Council to pay the Applicant’s
     Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons Ltd                     costs and to bear its own costs.
                        (Case C-234/00)                               —     to decide to give final judgment in the matter, to dismiss
                                                                            the Application at First Instance as unfounded and to
                        (2000/C 247/23)                                     order the Applicant at First Instance to pay the costs of
                                                                            the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Queen’s Bench Division (Crown               —     to decide on the costs of this Appeal as it sees fit.
office) of 25 May 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of The Queen against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons Ltd, on the following question:      Pleas in law and main arguments
‘Is a transporter allowed to rely on point 8 of Chapter VII of
the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection           The Council appeals to the Court of Justice against the decision
of animals during transport (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17), as                of the Court of First Instance on the grounds that it considers,
amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC (OJ 1995 L 148,                 as it has already asserted in its appeal (Case C-353/99 P)
p. 52), in planning a journey and when submitting a route             against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 July
plan for that journey, or may point 8 only be relied on if an         1999 in Case T-14/98 (Heidi Hautala v. Council of the
unexpected delay has arisen during the course of the journey?’        European Union), that the former committed a fundamental
                                                                      error of law in interpreting, in this judgment, Article 4(1) of
                                                                      the decision on public access to Council documents as legally
                                                                      requiring the Council to consider whether access should be
                                                                      given to parts of a document to which access is requested.
                                                                      That judgment was confirmed and applied by the Court of
                                                                      First Instance in the present case. The Council therefore
                                                                      contests the Court’s findings as regards the Applicant’s plea of
Appeal brought on 13 June 2000 by the Council of                      breach of Decision 93/731/EC (1) in that the Council did not
the European Union against the judgment delivered on                  grant partial access to the document, on grounds that they are
6 April 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First              based on legally erroneous assumptions.
Instance of the European Communities in case T-188/98
between Aldo Kuijer and the Council of the European
                             Union
                                                                      The arguments on which the Council relies are that the Court
                                                                      of First Instance, in its judgment of 19 July 1999 in Case
                       (Case C-239/00 P)                              T-14/98, and consequently in the present case,
                        (2000/C 247/24)
                                                                      (a)   incorrectly construed the legal effect of the decision on
                                                                            public access to Council documents,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 April 2000 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-188/98 between Aldo Kuijer             (b) misconstrued the objective of the decision on public
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before                   access to Council documents,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 June
2000 by the Council of the European Union, represented by
Mrs Jill Aussant and Mr Martin Bauer, respectively, Director          (c)   misapplied the principal of proportionality,
and Legal Adviser in the Council Legal Service, with an address
for service in Luxembourg care of Mr Alessandro Morbilli,
European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,              which led it to an erroneous interpretation of Article 4(1) of
L-2925 Luxembourg.                                                    Decision 93/731/EC.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      (1) Council decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            access to Council documents, OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43-44.
      6 April 2000 by which it annuls the Council’s decision
      of 28 September 1998, as amended by the decision of
      18 May 1999, refusing the Applicant access to certain
      reports drawn up by the centre for Information, Dis-
      cussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain reports of


title: Case C-290/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00: Scott S. A, supported by the French Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/25

         Appeal brought on 14 June 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00: Scott S. A, supported by the French Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-290/07 P)
   (2007/C 183/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Flett, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Scott SA, French Republic
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the contested the contested judgment

               —

               give final judgement in the matters that are subject of this appeal. Failing which, for any matter with respect to which the Court considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to refer the case back to the CFI for reassessment.

               —

               Order the applicant bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission relating to the proceedings before this Court and before the Court of First Instance; and order the French Republic to bear its own costs relating

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first four grounds of appeal relate to legal errors in the contested judgment concerning the procedural rights of third parties and the procedural obligations of the Commission in State aid proceedings:

               The first ground of appeal concerns the exclusion from the administrative file of Scott's additional comments of 24.12.1999, sent 13 months after the prescribed time limit.

               The second ground of appeal concerns the contested judgment's finding that the Commission was under a procedural obligation to provide France with a further opportunity to produce the alleged valuations.

               The third ground of appeal concerns the contested judgment's finding that the Commission was under procedural obligation to give Scott a further opportunity to submit comments.

               The fourth ground of appeal concerns the contested judgement's finding that the Commission was under a procedural obligation to use an ‘outside expert’.

         In relation to these matters, the Commission submits that the contested judgment neither sets out nor applies the correct legal standard: did the Commission infringe an essential procedural requirement. In addition, the contested judgment could not lawfully rule on these matters since Scott's application did not include any such grounds of annulment. In any event; the Commission submits that there was no infringement of an essential procedural requirement. No such requirements are provided for the Procedural Regulation; and the contested judgment was not entitled to ‘grant’ such rights or impose such obligations based on the erroneous considerations set out in the contested judgment. Finally, there was no breach of an essential procedural requirement:

               Scott's excluded additional comments were in re-submitted by France on 21.2.2000, included in the administrative file, and assessed in the contested decision.

               Given the four information requests and the information injunction the Commission was not obliged to give France a further opportunity to produce the alleged valuations.

               Scott had ample opportunity to submit comments, and in particular participated in the response to the information injunction.

               Both France and Scott had ample opportunity to produce a grant-date valuation, but failed to do so.

         The fifth to eighth grounds of appeal group together what the Commission has termed for convenience only ‘preliminary issues’, and relate to legal errors in the contested judgment concerning: the absence from Scott's application of any ground of annulment relating to the alleged valuations; the Court of First Instance's standard of review (the Commission is said to have no margin of appreciation); the contested judgment's reliance on speculation instead of evidence; and the reversal of the burden of proof in State aid proceedings and proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
   The ninth and tenth grounds of appeal relate to substantive legal errors concerning the factory.
   The ninth ground of appeal concerns the method for assessing the amount of State aid in transfers in kind. Contrary to what the contested judgment finds, absent a grant-date valuation or open tender, the Commission is lawfully entitled to use cost as proxy for value. This was particularly reasonable in the present case because the factory was tailored to Scott's requirements. The contested judgment's reasoning regarding the alleged sale price 11 years after grant is dependent on alleged procedural irregularities and other legal errors; and is in any event substantively erroneous.
   The tenth ground of appeal concerns supposed errors by the Commission in the application of the cost-based method. The contested judgment's findings are dependent on alleged procedural irregularities and other legal errors. The Commission's conservative estimate of the costs was the lowest possible; and there is no basis for annulling the contested decision on the grounds that the State aid might have been higher.
   The eleventh to thirteenth grounds of appeal relate to substantive legal errors concerning the land.
   The eleventh ground of appeal relates to the contested judgment's dismissal of the conservative valuations in Orléans Council Minutes of 27.5.1994 as ‘a very brief summary without detailed explanation’.
   The twelfth ground of appeal concerns the method for assessing the amount of State aid transfers in kind, and is similar to the ninth ground of appeal. Absent a grant-date valuation or open tender the Commission is lawfully entitled to use cost as a proxy for value. This was particularly reasonable in the present case because the third land purchase was tailored to Scott's requirements. The contested judgment's reasoning regarding the alleged tax audit dependent on alleged procedural irregularities and other legal errors; and is in any event substantively erroneous.
   The thirteenth ground of appeal concerns supposed errors by the Commission in the application of the cost-based method. The contested judgment's findings are dependent on alleged procedural irregularities and other legal errors. The Commission used the lowest possible land value as asserted by both France and Scott. The facts and evidence supporting the Commission are: the Offer Document; the alleged Galtier and Commissaire aux Apports valuations; the Orléans Council Minutes of 27.5.1994; and the average price of the three land parcel purchases. There is no basis for annulling the contested decision on the grounds that the State aid might have been higher.
   The fourteenth ground of appeal concerns the information injunction, particularly with respect to the land, the cost-based method for assessing the amount of State aid, and the three land parcel purchases. This is a procedural matter, but is dealt with at the end because it is linked to thirteenth ground of appeal.
   By the fifteenth ground of appeal the Commission requests the Court to quash the contested judgment because of the distortion by the Court of First Instance of the clear sense of the evidence before it, in particular because the Court of First Instance has substituted its own reasoning for that of the contested decision.


title: Case C-517/10: Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias — Spain) — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias — Spain) — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-517/10) (1)

   2011/C 186/30
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-453/15: Action brought on 6 August 2015 — Trinity Haircare v OHIM — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/46

         Action brought on 6 August 2015 — Trinity Haircare v OHIM — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE)
   (Case T-453/15)
   (2015/C 320/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trinity Haircare AG (Herisau, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘VOGUE’ — Community trade mark No 9 944 547

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2426/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and declare the CTM No 009 944 547 VOGUE invalid;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceeding.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-52/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen — Sweden) — Kanal 5 Ltd, TV 4 AB v Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM) (Copyright — Copyright management organisation enjoying a de facto monopoly — Collection of royalties relating to the broadcast of musical works — Method of calculating those royalties — Dominant position — Abuse)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen — Sweden) — Kanal 5 Ltd, TV 4 AB v Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)
   (Case C-52/07) (1)

   (Copyright - Copyright management organisation enjoying a de facto monopoly - Collection of royalties relating to the broadcast of musical works - Method of calculating those royalties - Dominant position - Abuse)
   (2009/C 32/03)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Marknadsdomstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kanal 5 Ltd, TV 4 AB

      Defendant: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 82 EC — Payments made by commercial television channels to an organisation responsible for the management of the performing rights of musical works — Calculation of payments based on a percentage of the revenue from, inter alia, subscriptions and advertising.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a copyright management organisation with a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market does not abuse that position where, with respect to remuneration paid for the television broadcast of musical works protected by copyright, it applies to commercial television channels a remuneration model according to which the amount of the royalties corresponds partly to the revenue of those channels, provided that that part is proportionate overall to the quantity of musical works protected by copyright actually broadcast or likely to be broadcast, unless another method enables the use of those works and the audience to be identified more precisely without however resulting in a disproportionate increase in the costs incurred for the management of contracts and the supervision of the use of those works.

               2)

               Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, by calculating the royalties with respect to remuneration paid for the broadcast of musical works protected by copyright in a different manner according to whether the companies concerned are commercial companies or public service undertakings, a copyright management organisation is likely to exploit in an abusive manner its dominant position within the meaning of that article if it applies with respect to those companies dissimilar conditions to equivalent services and if it places them as a result at a competitive disadvantage, unless such a practice may be objectively justified.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-235/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014  — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014 — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others
   (Case C-235/14)
   2014/C 235/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Safe Interenvíos, S.A.

      Defendants: Liberbank, S.A., Banco de Sabadell, S.A. and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1)

               The interpretation of Article 11(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1):

                           a)

                           If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, was it the Union legislature’s intention to establish a genuine derogation from the possibility that credit institutions may adopt customer due diligence measures when their customers are themselves payment institutions in turn subject to their own supervision system, or is it simply an authorisation to derogate?

                           b)

                           If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 5 of that directive, may the national legislature transpose the derogation laid down in the provision concerned in terms other than the actual wording thereof?

                           c)

                           Does the derogation contained in Article 11(1) apply to enhanced due diligence measures too in the same terms as it applies to due diligence measures?

               2)

               In the alternative, should the reply to the above questions confirm that credit institutions may adopt due diligence measures and enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

                           a)

                           How far does the possibility that credit institutions may supervise the operations of payment institutions extend? Can they be deemed to be authorised under the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC to supervise the due diligence procedures and measures adopted in turn by payment institutions or does that power belong exclusively to the public institutions referred to in Directive 2007/64/EC (2), in the present case, the Banco de España (Bank of Spain)?

                           b)

                           Does the application of that right of credit institutions to adopt measures require any special justification that may be deduced from the acts of the payment institution or may those measures instead be adopted generally, simply on account of the fact that the payment institution carries out a risky activity such as the sending of remittances abroad?

                           c)

                           If it is held that a specific justification is required in order for credit institutions to be able to adopt due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

                                       i.

                                       What is the relevant conduct that a bank must bear in mind for the purposes of adopting due diligence measures?

                                       ii.

                                       Can a credit institution be considered authorised to assess, for that purpose, the due diligence measures which a payment institution applies in its procedures?

                                       iii.

                                       Does the fact that a bank may have identified in a payment institution’s operations conduct leading it to suspect collaboration in money-laundering activities or in terrorist financing require the exercise of that power?

               3)

               In addition, if it should be held that credit institutions are authorised to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

                           a)

                           Is it acceptable that those measures may include a measure requiring payment institutions to provide identification data for all their customers from whom the funds remitted originate, and the identities of the recipients?

                           b)

                           Is the obligation of payment institutions to provide their customers’ data to credit institutions with which they are forced to operate and with which they also compete on the market compatible with Directive 95/46/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data?

      (1)  Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

      (2)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


3.7.1999              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 188/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/98 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-328/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 188/58)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/59)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 22 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-353/98: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-328/98: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                  (1) OJ No C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Case T-74/07: Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/54

         Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission
   (Case T-74/07)
   (2007/C 95/108)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant): Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumme and C. Blaschke, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 7271 final of 27 December 2006 on the reduction of the period of the financial contribution of the European Regional Development Fund granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2271 to the Operational Programme under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions in Germany,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the period of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund to the Operational Programme for North-Rhine Westphalia under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions.
   In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), on the ground that it contains no provisions allowing for a reduction of that kind. It argues in particular that the deviations from the indicative financing plan do not represent a significant alteration of the plan. The applicant claims that, even if the plan were to have been significantly altered, the Commission should agree to that alteration.
   In addition, the applicant maintains that insufficient reasons were given for the reduction. In particular, it claims that there is no justification for the failure to apply the rule of flexibility in the ‘Guidelines on the financial closure of operational measures (1994 — 1999) of the structural funds ’(SEC(1999) 1316).
   If it were to be accepted that provisions allowing a reduction exist, the applicant argues that defendant failed to exercise the discretion afforded to it in relation to the specific programme. According to the applicant, the Commission should have considered whether a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund contribution appeared reasonable.
   Lastly, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of the principle of partnership.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case T-55/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Netherlands v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Rural development support — Transitional measures — Concept of multi-annual expenditure — Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-55/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Rural development support - Transitional measures - Concept of ‘multi-annual expenditure’ - Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999)
   2009/C 282/77
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: initially H. Sevenster and M. de Grave, subsequently M. de Grave, C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and more particularly with regard to the financial correction applied to the reimbursement of ineligible expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the year 2002 in the amount of EUR 5.67 million.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.04.2007.


title: Case C-519/04 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2004 by D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/16

         Appeal brought on 22 December 2004 by D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-519/04 P)
   (2005/C 57/31)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December 2004 (fax: 20.12.2004) by D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, represented by J.- L. Dupont and M.- A. Lucas, lawyers.
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02, against which the appeal has been brought;

               —

               grant the form of order sought by the appellants in the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

         Pleas on appeal and main arguments
   The judgement of the Court of First Instance infringes Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.
   Firstly, the Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that those provisions apply only to rules laid down in the field of sport which concern the economic aspect of sport, to the exclusion of purely sporting rules. The Court of Justice has not laid down such a general exclusion of purely sporting rules from the scope of the provisions of the Treaty, that exclusion being limited to the rules relating to the composition and training of national teams.
   The Court of First Instance was also wrong to hold that that the anti-doping legislation is based on purely sporting considerations when it accepted that such legislation may pursue an economic objective. The Court of First Instance thereby made materially inaccurate factual findings, contradicted itself in the grounds, which are moreover inadequate, and erred in its legal characterisation of the facts.
   Furthermore, by holding that that the legislation at issue falls outside the scope of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, the Court of First Instance infringed those articles.
   Finally, the Court of First Instance committed a breach of the procedural rules and more specifically the rights of the defence, by holding that the Commission's analysis of the legislation at issue in its decision rejecting the complaint is superfluous, when it is apparent from that decision that the Commission had regarded that legislation as falling within the scope of the provisions of the EC Treaty. The Court of First Instance thereby infringed the rights of the defence of the appellants, who were not able to present their point of view on that question.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 1997 in Case C-117/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende, acting on behalf of Carina Mosbæk v. Lønmodtagernes Garantifond (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the employer's insolvency - Directive 80/987/EEC - Employee residing and employed in a State other than that in which the employer is established - Guarantee institution)

text:
C 331 /8                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 11 . 97
Article 3 (1 ) (6) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                      States relating to the protection of employees in the event
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of                       of the insolvency of their employer, for the payment of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation                  that employee's claims in the event of the employer's
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate                     insolvency is the institution of the State in which, in
consumer is to be interpreted as meaning that the                          accordance with Article 2 (1 ) of the directive, either it is
expression 'established within the Community ' used in it                  decided to open the proceedings for the collective
refers only to the seller.                                                 satisfaction of creditors ' claims or it has been established
                                                                           that the employer's undertaking or business has been
                                                                           closed down.
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
( 2 ) OJ L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
                                                                           (') OJ C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p. 23 .
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 17 September 1997
                                                                                of 17 September 1997
in Case C- 11 7/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Østre Landsret): Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende,                      in Case C-141/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Osnabrück-Land v.
acting on behalf of Carina Mosbæk v. Lønmodtagernes
                               Garantifond (*)                                                     Bernhard Langhorst (')
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of                   (Value added tax — Interpretation of Articles 21 (1 ) (c)
                                                                           and 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC —
the employer's insolvency — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Employee residing and employed in a State other than that                  Document serving as an invoice — Credit note issued by
in which the employer is established — Guarantee                           the buyer and not contested by the seller as regards the
                                   institution)                                                     amount of tax shown)
                                ( 97/C 331 / 13                                                          ( 97/C 331/14 )
                    (Language of the case: Danish)                                           (Language of the case: German)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                   published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-117/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                 In Case C-141 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern                         of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
Regional Court) ( Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in                    Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the proceedings pending before that court between                          pending before that court between Finanzamt Osnabrück-
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende, acting on behalf of                       Land and Bernhard Langhorst — on the interpretation
Carina Mosbæk and Lønmodtagernes Garantifond — on                          of Articles 21 ( 1 ) (c ) and 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
the interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/               Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                    to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
employees in the event of the insolvency of their                          uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of:
employer (2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L.                    Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L.
Sevón, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet                            Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.                     Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has                     Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in which it has                     Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
ruled:                                                                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
                                                                           1997, in which it has ruled:
Where the employer is established in a Member State
other than that in • which the employee resides and was                    1 . Article 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Chamber Directive 77/
employed, the guarantee institution responsible, under                           388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October                           laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                              — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis


title: Case T-491/04: Action brought on 21 December 2004 by Merant GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/29

         Action brought on 21 December 2004 by Merant GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-491/04)
   (2005/C 82/57)
   Language in which the application was drafted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 December 2004 by Merant GmbH, Ismaning (Germany), represented by A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt.
   Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2004 in Case R-542/2002-2;

               —

               reinstate the decision of the Opposition Division of 29 April 2002 (Decision No 1198/2002), namely to reject Community trade mark application No 453 720 for the following goods and services:

                           —

                           ‘Machine readable data carriers of all types equipped with information, and software, in particular digital and analog data carriers containing, for example, cultural, scientific, industrial or technical information; programmed floppy disks, CD-ROM video cassettes, compact discs, chip discs; magnetic data carriers in Class 9;

                           —

                           Publications, newspapers and periodicals, books, posters, calendars, photographs; typewriter and office requisites, namely non-electric office equipment, writing implements, ball-point pens, fountain pens, teaching and instructional material, including in the form of models and display boards in Class 16;

                           —

                           Publication of digital and analog data carriers containing, for example, cultural, scientific, sports, industrial or technical information in Class 41 and up-dating services, including for CD ROMs; editor's services in Class 42.’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark 'FOCUS' for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 – application No 453 720.

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The international figurative mark 'MICRO FOCUS' for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 41 and 42.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition allowed in part.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal brought by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH allowed and applicant's opposition rejected.

               Pleas in law:

               Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 has been misapplied. There is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks. The later mark applied for has adopted an element of the earlier mark identically and the goods and services covered by the marks are partly identical and partly extremely similar.


title: Case T-135/16: Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres v ECB

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/32

         Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres v ECB
   (Case T-135/16)
   (2016/C 175/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres (Saintes, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/101) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-133/16, Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB.


title: Case T-454/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Werner (Dynamic Life)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/47

         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Werner (Dynamic Life)
   (Case T-454/15)
   (2015/C 320/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Pérez Serres, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Matthias Werner (Neufahrn, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in white, red, orange, yellow, green and blue purple containing the word elements ‘Dynamic Life’ — Application for registration No 11 303 468

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 441/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               revoke the contested decision and reject the CTM No 011303468 DYNAMIC LIFE & design in classes 5 and 32;

               —

               order OHIM and Mr. Matthias Werner, in case he decides to intervene, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-384/97 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Water pollution — Obligation to adopt programmes in order to reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances — Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC)

text:
12.8.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 233/9
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,            obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Directive
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May 2000, in                 76/464 — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: R. Schint-
which it has ruled:                                                        gen, President of the Second Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
                                                                           G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges;
The derogation provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive        P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation             Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000 in which it:
of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of        1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction program-
social security must be interpreted as applying to a benefit, such as            mes including quality objectives for the dangerous substances
the reduced earnings allowance at issue in the main proceedings,                 covered by the first indent of List II of the annex to Council
which was introduced into national legislation after expiry of the               Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
period prescribed for transposition of the Directive and is subject to           certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
age conditions which differ according to sex.                                    environment of the Community, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive;
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                           2.
                                                                                Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                           of 25 May 2000
                                                                                of 25 May 2000
in Case C-384/97 Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                           in Case C-273/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Bundesfinanzhof): Hans-Josef Schlebusch v Haupt-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Water                                             zollamt Trier (1)
pollution — Obligation to adopt programmes in order to
reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances —                  (Additional levy on milk — Original and special reference
          Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC)                       quantities — Accumulation — Definitive allocation of a
                                                                           special reference quantity — Conditions — Temporary
                                                                           transfer of part of an original reference quantity before the
                           (2000/C 233/17)                                      definitive allocation of a special reference quantity)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/18)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-384/97, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                    In Case C-273/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
A. Samoni-Rantou and E.-M. Mamouna) — Application for a                    the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany, for a
declaration that, by failing to establish programmes including             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementa-             court between Hans-Josef Schlebusch and Hauptzollamt Trier
tion, in order to reduce water pollution caused by the                     — on the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of
99 dangerous substances covered by the first indent of List II             Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May                      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances                   to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community                   and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended
(OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), and consequently by failing to require             by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 (OJ
discharges which are made into waters and liable to contain                1991 L 150, p. 35) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
any of the said substances to be subject to a prior authorisation          of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rappor-
issued by the competent authority in which emission standards              teur) and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
are set on the basis of quality objectives laid down in such               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in
programmes, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                 which it has ruled:


title: Case T-104/11: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Ferrari v OHIM (PERLE') (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark PERLE' — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Ferrari v OHIM (PERLE')
   (Case T-104/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark PERLE' - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 79/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA (Trento, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by G. Mannucci, and subsequently L. Rampini and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 December 2010 (Case R 1249/2010-2) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the figurative mark PERLE'.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-242/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Weiler v OHIM — IQNet Association — The International Certification Network (Q2WEB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Q2WEB — Earlier Community word mark QWEB and earlier Community figurative mark QWEB Certified Site — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Weiler v OHIM — IQNet Association — The International Certification Network (Q2WEB)
   (Case T-242/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Q2WEB - Earlier Community word mark QWEB and earlier Community figurative mark QWEB Certified Site - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dieter Weiler (Pulheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: IQNet Association — The International Certification Network (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and P. Bodenham, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 893/2005-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali, then IQNet Association — The International Certification Network, and Mr Weiler
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Dieter Weiler to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/1

         2009/C 167/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

      OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

      OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

      OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


C 84/54               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.4.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/01 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-119/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/95)                                                    (2002/C 84/98)
By order of 23 October 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-48/01: Commission of the
                                                                  from the register of Case C-119/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                  European Communities v Finland.
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and
                           C-52/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-244/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/96)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/99)
By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and C-52/01:            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Beta Television          from the register of Case C-244/01: Commission of the
SpA (Videomusic/TMC2) and Internazionale SpA.                     European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-118/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-336/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/100)
By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-118/01: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-336/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case T-385/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word ULTIMATE — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)
   (Case T-385/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word ULTIMATE - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2014 (Case R 1787/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ULTIMATE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Volkswagen AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-311/05: Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Rounis v Commission

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/22

         Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Rounis v Commission
   (Case T-311/05)
   (2005/C 271/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): George Rounis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision refusing the transfer of part of the applicant's salary intended to pay the university fees for his daughter for the academic year 2003-2004;

               —

               award compensation for material and non-material damage on account of the various serious errors committed at different levels, assessed ex aequo et bono EUR 13 582.88 together with interest at 5.25 % until full payment, subject to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who also brought Case T-17/01 (1), contests, in particular, the Appointing Authority's refusal to transfer to the United Kingdom the 35 % of his net monthly salary intended to pay the fees for his daughter's university studies.
   He states, in that regard, that he provided evidence of the actual expenses in the United Kingdom and that the right to make such a transfer has been conferred on him since the judgment of 16 May 2002, supplemented by the judgment of 30 September 2002, delivered in the case cited above.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, together with Article 17 of Annexes VII and XIII thereof, also in the version resulting from the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of 1 May 2004. He also alleges that general principles of law have been disregarded, such as the principles of sound administration and management, the principle of the protection of legitimate hopes and expectations, the duty to have regard for the welfare of employees and the principles which require the Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on the basis of grounds which are relevant and which are not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.

      (1)  Judgments of 16 May 2002 (ECR-SC IA-63; II-301) and 30 September 2003 (ECR-SC IA-221; II-1079).


title: Case C-662/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Laboratoire de la mer against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-109/16: Laboratoire de la mer v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/20

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Laboratoire de la mer against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-109/16: Laboratoire de la mer v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-662/16 P)
   (2017/C 277/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Laboratoire de la mer (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 20 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-566/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/37

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-566/08)
   (2009/C 44/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos, G. Mazzini and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, on the ground of breach of the EC Treaty, Council Decision 2008/780/EC of 29 September 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (1);

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament relies on a single plea in law in support of its application, namely the wrong legal basis of the contested decision. According to the Parliament, it is clear both from the interpretation of Article 300 EC and from the content of the agreement at issue in the present case that that agreement falls within the category of agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures. Consequently, the contested decision should have been adopted on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC — requiring the assent of the European Parliament to be obtained — and not on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC, providing merely for the Parliament to be consulted.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 268, p. 27.


title: Case C-535/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Maria Patmanidi SA

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Maria Patmanidi SA
   (Case C-535/13)
   2013/C 377/13
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha

      Defendant: Maria Patmanidi SA

      Question referred

   What is the scope of the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 89/104/ΕEC (1) (now Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/ΕC) (2) and of Article 13 of Regulation (ΕC) 40/94/ΕC (3) (now Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (4) in relation to the right of a trade mark proprietor to prohibit parallel imports into the EU and the EEA of its products which were first supplied or put on the market in a country outside the EU and the EEA, especially in the case of products with a large profit margin and price squeezing, as evidenced by large fluctuations in pricing policy, and/or where parallel imports may result in considerable reductions in prices to end consumers, for their benefit and the benefit of competition, as in the case of all types of spare parts for motor vehicles, in light of the effect, in isolation or combination, of: (a) the provisions of Articles 101and 102 TFEU; (b) the provisions of Articles I, XI.1, ΙΙΙ.4 and XX(d) and GATT 1994 law in general; and (c) Articles I and [Χ]XIV GΑΤΤ 1994, especially as they extend the scope of the provisions of Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC and of Article 13(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 207/2009 to products put on the market in contracting parties of the GΑΤΤ 1994 and reciprocity issues arise between them?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1988 L 40. p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 28, p. 18).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-493/11 P: Order of the Court of 15 June 2012 — United Technologies Corp. v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators — Fines — Parent company and subsidiaries — Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/20

         Order of the Court of 15 June 2012 — United Technologies Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-493/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Fines - Parent company and subsidiaries - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)
   2012/C 366/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: United Technologies Corp. (represented by: A. Winckler and D. Gerard, lawyers, and by J. Temple Lang and C. Cook, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel in the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, concerning bid-rigging, market-sharing, price-fixing, the awarding of projects and contracts related thereto and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               United Technologies Corporation shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-223/06: Action brought on  16 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/20

         Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-223/06)
   (2006/C 165/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, Agent)

      Defendant): Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (1), or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive expired on 1 January 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 178, p. 16.


               25.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 324/12

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson
   (Case E-3/12)
   2012/C 324/10
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 21 May 2012 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 May 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson, on the following question:
   When national legislation requires, inter alia, actual stay in the State in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits, is it then compatible with Article 71(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to require continued stay in the competent State (the State of last employment) in order to be granted such benefits from this State, also in the case of a wholly unemployed person who, during his/her last employment, has stayed there as a ‘non-genuine’ frontier worker?
   Is it relevant to the answer to this question whether:

               1.

               the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there?

               2.

               the unemployed person, after having returned to the State of residence, registers as a job seeker with the employment service and also applies for unemployment benefits in that State?


title: Case T-241/08: Action brought on 20 June 2008 — CBI and Abisp v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/61

         Action brought on 20 June 2008 — CBI and Abisp v Commission
   (Case T-241/08)
   (2008/C 209/109)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Coordination Bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Association Bruxelloise des Institutions de Soins Privées (Abisp) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and D. Slater, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the confirmatory decision of the Commission;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 April 2008, which, in their opinion, confirms the Commission's decision of 10 January 2008 rejecting their complaint made on 7 September and 17 October 2005 against the State aid granted by the Kingdom of Belgium to public hospitals of the IRIS network in the Brussels-Capital Region and refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid in question pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those submitted in Case T-128/08 CBI and Abisp v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 142, p. 30.


title: Case T-196/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — MTU Friedrichshafen v Commission (State aid — Restructuring aid — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Joint and several liability)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — MTU Friedrichshafen v Commission
   (Case T-196/02) (1)

   (State aid - Restructuring aid - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Joint and several liability)
   (2007/C 247/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH (Friedrichshafen, Germany) (represented by F. Montag and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Kreuschitz, V. Di Bucci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2002/898/EC of 9 April 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (OJ 2002 L 314, p. 75).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2002/898/EC of 9 April 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH, in so far as it orders MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH to repay jointly and severally a sum of EUR 2,71 million;

               2.

               orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by MTU Friedrichshafen.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 14.9.2002.