title: Case T-84/12: Action brought on 31 January 2012 — Uspaskich v Parliament

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/19

         Action brought on 31 January 2012 — Uspaskich v Parliament
   (Case T-84/12)
   2012/C 126/38
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: Aivaras Raišutis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision No P7_TA(2011)0541 of the European Parlimanent of 1 December 2011 concerning a request for defence of the applicant’s immunity;

               —

               grant the applicant’s request of 11 April 2011 for renewal of consideration of the Principal State Prosecutor’s request that immunity be waived;

               —

               protect the applicant’s immunity;

               —

               award the applicant EUR 10 000 in damages;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   The first plea is connected with infringement of the right to reconsideration of an earlier decision when new facts giving rise to a presumption of fumus persecutionis have come to light.
   The second plea is connected with infringement of the right to impartial consideration of the request, the same person having been appointed rapporteur in the second case concerning defence of immunity.
   The third plea is connected with infringement of rights of the defence and the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly.
   The fourth plea is connected with infringement of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, it being argued that the European Parliament adopted the contested decision on an incorrect legal basis and infringed subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol because it relied on a manifestly incorrect interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 62 of the Lithuanian Constitution.
   The fifth plea is connected with a manifestly incorrect assessment of fumus persecutionis. In the applicant’s submission, the European Parliament made an incorrect assessment as regards the binding nature of its previous decisions concerning immunity and as regards the concept of fumus, and it refused to consider the applicant’s arguments concerning fumus persecutionis on the basis of which he had to be recognised as a victim of political persecution.


title: Case T-70/05: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA (Public service contracts — EMSA tendering procedures — Provision of information technology services — Rejection of the tender — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — Non-compliance of a tender — Equal treatment — Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tender specifications or the contract notice — Establishment of sub-criteria for the award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA
   (Case T-70/05) (1)

   (Public service contracts - EMSA tendering procedures - Provision of information technology services - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Non-compliance of a tender - Equal treatment - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tender specifications or the contract notice - Establishment of sub-criteria for the award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)
   2010/C 100/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: W. de Ruiter and J. Menze, Agents and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decisions of EMSA not to accept the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedures EMSA C-1/01/04, relating to the contract entitled ‘SafeSeaNet Validation and further development’, and EMSA C-2/06/04, relating to the contract entitled ‘Specification and development of a marine casualty database, network and management system’, and to award those contracts to other tenderers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to award the contract to the successful tenderer in tendering procedure ‘EMSA C-2/06/04’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-38/03: Action brought on 3 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 70/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          22.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        3.    order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period          Pleas and main arguments
expired on 10 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to          —     Incorrect, overly broad interpretation of the absolute
in the conclusions of the Commission.                                        ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b) of Council
                                                                             Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark:
                                                                             from the point of view of the average consumer, the
( 1) OJ L 175, 10.07.1999, p. 43.                                            mark applied for serves to identify the goods and services
                                                                             in respect of which registration is sought as originating
                                                                             from the appellant and, accordingly, to distinguish those
                                                                             goods and services from those of other undertakings.
                                                                             Considered as a whole, the sign consisting of a word
                                                                             element and additional graphic elements undoubtedly
                                                                             performs the function of providing a guarantee that all
                                                                             the goods or services bearing it have originated under the
                                                                             control of a single undertaking which is responsible for
                                                                             their quality.
Appeal brought on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in
                                                                       —     Had the Court of First Instance correctly interpreted the
judicial liquidation, against the judgment delivered on
                                                                             absolute ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b), it
5 December 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                             would have had to examine the further plea alleging
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                             infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and to reach the con-
T-91/01 between BioID AG, in judicial liquidation, and                       clusion, on the basis of its findings of fact, that the mark
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             applied for was also not caught by the absolute ground
                   (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             for refusal set out therein which applies where the signs
                                                                             or indications of which a mark consists are of an
                                                                             exclusively descriptive nature. In that regard, the Court of
                        (Case C-37/03 P)                                     Justice may, since the state of the proceedings so permits,
                                                                             give final judgment as provided by Article 54 of the
                                                                             Statute of the Court.
                         (2003/C 70/23)
                                                                       (1 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                            Communities.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 December
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-91/01 between BioID
AG, in judicial liquidation, and the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in judicial liquidation,
represented by Dr Axel Nordemann, Rechtsanwalt, Boehmert               Action brought on 3 February 2003 by the Commission
& Boehmert, Meinekestr. 26, D-10719 Berlin, with an address            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
for service in Luxembourg.                                                                          Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-38/03)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 70/24)
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      5 December 2002 in Case T-91/01 BioID AG v Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) ( 1);
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
2.    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade           on 3 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
      Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 in Appeal                 Communities, represented by L. Ström F. Simonetti, acting as
      R 538/1999-2;                                                    Agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 70/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Belgian authorities (reliable scale of costs for patients and
                                                                           realities of the market) has to date been identified by the Court
                                                                           of Justice as an overriding requirement capable of justifying a
(a)   Declare that,                                                        measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.
                                                                           The Commission is of the view that a period of up to 9 months
                                                                           for including on the list of reimburseable wheelchairs those
      —     by laying down the technical criteria to be met by             bearing EC markings which, accordingly, meet the require-
            wheelchairs in order to be eligible for reimbursement          ments of public health and safety laid down in Directive 93/
            by social security in such a way as to exclude from            42, cannot be considered to be reasonable.
            the list of wheelchairs eligible for reimbursement
            those bearing EC markings but which do not meet
            the relevant criteria, namely, as regards the diameter
            of the front and rear wheels, the cover and filling of         (1 ) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical
            the seat and back, the dimensions of the flat sections              devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).
            and crossbars, head rests and/or foot or leg rests;
      —     by laying down more general criteria which the
            economic operator must meet in order to be
            included on the list of reimburseable wheelchairs,
            namely special conditions for manual wheelchairs,
            as well as special conditions for power wheelchairs
            according to which such wheelchairs must be avail-
            able in a minimum number of seat sizes;
      —     by having been too rigid in its updating of the list of        Appeal brought on 3 February 2003 by Commission of the
            equipment eligible for the reimbursement scheme,               European Communities against the judgment delivered on
            the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                26 November 2002 by the Second Chamber, Extended
            obligations under Article 28 EC;                               Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/
                                                                           00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00 between
                                                                           Artegodan GmbH, Bruno Farmaceutici and Others,
(b)   Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                           Schuck GmbH, Laboratorios Roussel Lda, Laboratoires
                                                                           Roussel Diamant Sàrl, Roussel Iberica SA, Gerot Pharma-
                                                                           zeutika GmbH, Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Ltd and
                                                                           Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker SA and Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-39/03 P)
Wheelchairs are medical devices within the meaning of Council
Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical                                                (2003/C 70/25)
devices (1). It follows that wheelchairs bearing an EC marking,
provided for in Article 17 of that directive, must be freely
placed on the market in all the Member States. Eligibility for
reimbursement determines to a large extent access to the
Belgian market in wheelchairs, the cost of which is in many
cases considerable and in respect of which eligibility for                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 November
reimbursement is decisive in the choice of the patient.                    2002 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Keeping in place technical criteria conditioning eligibility for           Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
reimbursement of wheelchairs is not justified by public health             Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00,
reasons, since all wheelchairs bearing EC markings are deemed              T-137/00 and T-141/00 between Artegodan GmbH, Bruno
to satisfy the safety criteria laid down by Directive 93/42/EEC.           Farmaceutici and Others, Schuck GmbH, Laboratorios Roussel
Moreover, the Belgian authorities have not shown in what way               Lda, Laboratoires Roussel Diamant Sàrl, Roussel Iberica SA,
making reimbursement for wheelchairs contingent on the                     Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, Cambridge Healthcare Supplies
satisfaction of certain technical criteria could contribute to             Ltd and Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker SA and Com-
maintaining the financing of the health insurance system in                mission of the European Communities was brought before the
equilibrium. The requirement that wheelchairs should be                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February
available in a minimum range of chair sizes is not such as to              2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
offer greater protection for the health and safety of users and            represented by R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk, assisted by
other persons. None of the objectives relied upon by the                   B. Wägenbauer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case F-116/15: Action brought on 17 August 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/37

         Action brought on 17 August 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-116/15)
   (2015/C 328/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant from the department ‘International Cooperation and Legal Affairs’ to the department ‘Operations’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul OHIM’s decision of 2 October 2014 to transfer the applicant from the ‘International Cooperation and Legal Affairs’ department to the ‘Operations’ department;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.


title: Case C-331/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2014 by Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2013 in Case T-545/12 Morey and Others v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/17

         Appeal brought on 24 January 2014 by Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2013 in Case T-545/12 Morey and Others v Commission
   (Case C-331/14 P)
   2014/C 102/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court;

               —

               refer the case back so that a decision may be given on the substance by the General Court, under conditions which guarantee that the preparatory inquiries are impartial;

               —

               provide that the costs are to be determined on the basis of the outcome of the main proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.
   In first place, the General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by failing to recoginse that the appellants have an interest in bringing proceedings. The appellants contend that the question whether an action is admissible is dependent on the ability of applicants who are not the addresses of a decision to show that the decision is of direct and individual concerned to them. According to the applicants, that is the only condition laid down by the Treaty for determining whether an action is admissible. Moreover, the Treaty makes no reference to an interest in bringing proceedings as an autonomous condition for bringing proceedings.
   The appellants state that they have an interest in bringing proceedings for the following reasons. First, the fact that Mory SA was an interested party in the proceedings which led to the Sernam 1, Sernam 2 and Sernam 3 decisions and that it intervened personally in those proceedings confers upon it an interest in bringing proceedings against a decision on the manner in which the last of those decisions is to be enforced. Second, the fact that the appellants are parties in two sets of proceedings pending before the French courts also establishes their interest in bringing proceedings. Third, Superga Invest’s interest in bringing proceedings derives directly from that of Mory SA and Mory Team, in which Superga Invest was the principal shareholder, and its participation in the proceedings referred to above. Lastly, the appellants’ interest in bringing proceedings derives from the fact that they were denied the procedural right to secure the instigation of a formal investigation procedure, in spite of the fact that they apprised the Commission by letter of the fact that Sernam’s assets had been taken over by Geodis.
   In second place, the appellants take issue with the General Court for failing to conclude that they were ‘directly and individually concerned’ for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court was incorrect not to examine the objections of inadmissibility raised by the Commission alleging a lack of individual concern on the part of the appellants. In the appellants’ view, there can be no doubt as to their being individually concerned according to the case-law of the General Court.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-331/01: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Additional payments granted to producers of bovine animals in 1996 — Time-limits for notification of results of checks)

text:
C 264/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
     Article 3 of that directive, whether a qualification obtained in        for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     another Member State by a national of a Member State wishing            court between Albacom SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA
     to pursue a regulated profession in the host Member State can           (C-293/01) and Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della
     be regarded as a diploma within the meaning of that provision           Programmazione Economica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni,
     and, if so, to determine the extent to which the training courses       on the interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European
     whose successful completion leads to the award of those                 Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common
     diplomas are similar with regard to both their duration and the         framework for general authorisations and individual licences
     matters covered. If it is apparent from that court’s examination        in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117,
     that both qualifications constitute diplomas within the meaning         p. 15), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
     of that directive and that those diplomas are awarded on the            President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola,
     completion of equivalent education or training, the directive           P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
     precludes the authorities of the host Member State from making          Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     access by that national of a Member State to the profession of          judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
     manager in the hospital public service subject to the condition
     that he complete the training given by the École nationale de la
     santé publique and pass the final examination at the end of             Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations
     that training.
                                                                             and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services
                                                                             and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, prohibit Member States from
2.   Where a national of a Member State holds a diploma obtained
                                                                             imposing financial charges other than and in addition to those
     in one Member State which is equivalent to the diploma
                                                                             allowed by the directive, such as the contested charge in the main
     required in another Member State in order to take up
                                                                             proceedings, on undertakings which hold individual licences in the
     employment in the hospital public service, Community law
                                                                             telecommunications sector solely because they hold such licences.
     precludes the authorities of the second Member State from
     making that national’s access to the employment in question
     subject to his passing a competition such as the entrance
                                                                             (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001 and OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
     examination of the École nationale de la santé publique.
(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (First Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                          of 11 September 2003
                      of 18 September 2003                                   in Case C-331/01: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Albacom
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Additional payments
SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA (C-293/01) v Ministero
                                                                             granted to producers of bovine animals in 1996 — Time-
del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Econ-
          omica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni (1)                                      limits for notification of results of checks)
(Telecommunications services — General authorisations and                                              (2003/C 264/20)
individual licences — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and
                 charges for individual licences)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2003/C 264/19)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            In Case C-331/01, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: initially by
                                                                             M. López-Monís Gallego and subsequently by L. Fraguas
                                                                             Gadea) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                             S. Pardo Quintillán): Application for the annulment of Com-
In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01: Reference to the                      mission Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001 excluding
Court under Article 234 EC by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)                 from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 264/13
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                         D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                    N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas
(OJ 2001 L 200, p. 28) in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of               (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Spain, the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),                 on 9 September 2003, in which it:
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.    Orders Ms Kik to pay the costs;
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                Council of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 9 September 2003                                                            (Second Chamber)
in Case C-361/01 P: Christina Kik v Office for Harmonis-                                           of 11 September 2003
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)
                                                                             in Case C-22/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 115 — Rules in force
governing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Plea
        of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)                                    implement Directive 1999/94/EC)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/22)
                         (2003/C 264/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-22/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-361/01 P, Christina Kik (represented by E. H. Pijnack-             (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
er Hordijk and S. B. Noë): Appeal against the judgment of the                (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by A. De Stefano): Application
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
T-120/99 Kik v OHIM [2001] ECR II-2235, seeking to have                      communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and
that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühendahl,                         13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
O. Montalto and J. Miranda de Sousa) supported by Com-                       information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and                     the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16),
N. Rasmussen), Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
and S. Vodina), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde)                  that directive, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
and Council of the European Union (Agent: G. Houttuin and                    R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and
A. Lo Monaco), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                        N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen             eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,                    2003, in which it:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Länsrätten i Jönköpings Län by order of that court of 26 January 1996 in the case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmänna Ombudet (Case C-27/96)

text:
No C 95/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             30 . 3 . 96
      medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                             Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division
                                                                           ( Crown Side ), by order of that court of 29 November 1995 ,
                                                                           in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against Ministry
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
                                                                                ( Case C-29/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
those of Case C-18/96 ( 3 ).                                                                              ( 96/C 95/ 13 )
(') OJ No L 270, 26 . 9 . 1991 , p . 32,
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 1 .                                  European Communities by an order of the High Court of
(-') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .                                   Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division
                                                                           ( Crown Side ) of 29 November 1995 , which was received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 5 February 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against
                                                                           Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the
                                                                           following questions :
                                                                           1 . Are Council Directives 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September
                                                                               1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Lansratten i                           States relating to veterinary medicinal products ( ! )
Jonkopings Lan by order of that court of 26 January 1996 in                    and 81 /852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
     the case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmanna Ombudet                          approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                            ( Case C-27/96 )                                   to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical
                              ( 96/C 95/ 12 )
                                                                               standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
                                                                               veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( and in particular
                                                                               Articles 5 , 8 , 9 , 1 1 , 14 , 29-31 , 35 , 40 and 41 of Directive
                                                                               81 /851 /EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                               81 /852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior
European Communities by an order of Lansratten i                               to any amendment) to be interpreted as permitting
Jonkopings Lan (Jonkoping County Administrative Court)                         the competent authority of a Member State, in
of 26 January 1996 , which was received at the Court                           circumstances such as those hereinbefore described :
Registry on 30 January 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmanna Ombudet ( Public
Attorney ) on the following questions :                                        ( a ) to require an applicant for a marketing
                                                                                authorization in respect of a veterinary medicinal
                                                                                product ('the Product') to identify or to arrange to
1 . on a true construction of the Act of Accession of                                 be identified to the competent authority the names
       Sweden,     Finland       and     Austria ('),   in  particular                and addresses of any and all manufacturers of the
      Articles 137 ( 2 ), 145 ( 2 ) and 149 ( 1 ), are decisions taken                substance which the applicant intends to purchase
       at national level concerning levies on normal                                  for use as one of the active ingredients ('the Active
      transitional stocks of sugar as set out in the Swedish                          Ingredient') in the manufacture by the applicant
       Sugar Law, as amended, to be regarded as unlawful                              of the Product, and to supply or arrange to be
       transitional measures ?
                                                                                supplied to the competent authority details of
                                                                                the site(s ) where the Active Ingredient would be
      If not :                                                                        manufactured and of the manufacturing processes
                                                                                and control testing procedures used by the
                                                                                manufacturer of the Active Ingredient;
2 . on a true construction of the European Community
      organization of the market in sugar, in particular                       ( b ) to require the applicant ( whether by specific licence
      Articles 39 and 40 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation
                                                                                conditions or by withholding grant of a marketing
       ( EEC ) No 1785/81 (2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EC )                       authorization or otherwise ) either to comply with
      No 3300/94 ( 3 ), are decisions taken at national level
                                                                                the above requirements or to market the Product
      concerning levies on normal transitional stocks of sugar                        only using supplies of the Active Ingredient
      as set out in the Swedish Sugar Law, as amended, to be                          purchased from specified third parties;
      regarded as unlawful interference in the organization of
      the market ?
                                                                               ( c ) to suspend the time limits for a grant of a marketing
                                                                                authorization laid down by Article 8 of Directive
( ] ) OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 .                                                   81 /851 /EEC until the applicant has agreed to
( 2 ) OJ No L 177 , 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .                                            supply the information referred to in ( a ) above ?
( 3 ) OJ No L 341 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 39 .
                                                                           2 . Would it be material to the answers to questions 1 ( a ) to
                                                                               ( c ) above if it were not reasonably possible for an
                                                                               applicant to obtain any of the information referred to in


title: Case C-298/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Calculation of payment entitlement — Setting the reference amount — Reference period — Article 40(1), (2) and (5) — Exceptional circumstances — Farmers under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Determination of the right to revalorisation of the reference amount — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Equal treatment between farmers)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/32

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche
   (Case C-298/12) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Calculation of payment entitlement - Setting the reference amount - Reference period - Article 40(1), (2) and (5) - Exceptional circumstances - Farmers under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Determination of the right to revalorisation of the reference amount - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Equal treatment between farmers)
   2013/C 344/54
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Confédération paysanne

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (France) — Interpretation of Article 40(1), (2) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Income support for farmers — Single payment scheme — Determination of reference amount — Reference period — Effect of agri-environmental commitments — Calculation of the right to revalorisation based, not on reduction of production, but on the amount of aid received during a reference period — Final date for taking agri-environmental commitments into account — Equality of treatment as between farmers

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2008 of 9 October 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the reference period, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 2078/92 of the Council of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and (EC) No 1257/1999 of the Council of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of the calendar year or years in the reference period which were not affected by those commitments.;

               2.

               The second subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 1009/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the period 1997-2002, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulation No 2078/92 and Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2223/2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competition distortions, which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Action brought on 27 March 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-84/98)

text:
C 184/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13.6.98
Action brought on 27 March 1998 by the Commission                   on 30 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                  Communities, represented by Dimitrios Goulousis, Legal
                           Republic                                 Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                        (Case C-84/98)                              office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (98/C 184/07)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought               The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of First Instance on 27 March 1998 by
the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by António Caeiro, Principal Legal Adviser,             Ð declare that, by retaining in force Article 2(5) of
acting as Agent, with an address for service in                          Presidential Decree 278/1992 and thereby requiring
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a                   that on the issue of a residence permit to a member of
member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                   the family of a national of a Member State who is not
                                                                         himself a national of a Member State fees be paid of a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              total amount higher than that required for the issue of
                                                                         an identity card to a Greek national, the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Ð declare that, by failing to denounce or adjust the
                                                                         Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on
    agreement with Yugoslavia so as to provide for fair,
                                                                         the abolition of restrictions on movement and
    free and non-discriminatory access by Community
                                                                         residence within the Community for workers of
    nationals to the cargo-shares due to Portugal, such
                                                                         Member States and their families (1), Council Directive
    access being prescribed in Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                         73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of
    No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the
                                                                         restrictions on movement and residence within the
    principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                         Community for nationals of Member States with
    transport between Member States and between
                                                                         regard to establishment and the provision of
    Member States and third countries, the Portuguese
                                                                         services (2), Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                         1990 on the right of residence (3), Council Directive
    Articles 3 and 4 of that regulation and under the EC
                                                                         90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence
    Treaty;
                                                                         for employees and self-employed persons who have
                                                                         ceased their occupational activity (4) and Council
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                        Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right
                                                                         of residence for students (5);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The agreement with Yugoslavia mentioned in the                      Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
application reserves the carriage of goods between the
parties to vessels flying the flag of one of the parties or to
vessels operated by persons or undertakings having the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
nationality of one of the parties. Thus, vessels operated by
nationals of other Member States are excluded from the
trade covered by the agreement. The Commission
considers that this constitutes cargo-sharing arrangements          The Commission has brought an action pursuant to the
which are subject to the provisions and obligations laid            second paragraph of Article 169 of the EC Treaty,
down in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 and, in particular,             challenging a provision of Greek law which lays down
in Article 4(1) of that regulation. Those arrangements              that, while a member of the family of a national of a
should therefore be altered to bring them into line with            Member State of the European Community settled in
the regulation.                                                     Greece who is not himself a national of a Member State is
                                                                    granted a residence document, it is, however, subject to
                                                                    the fees laid down for the grant of a residence permit to
(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                    nationals of non-Member countries. According to the
                                                                    Commission, which contends that Article 9(1) of Directive
                                                                    68/360/EEC should be interpreted broadly, the fees paid
                                                                    must not exceed those charged for the issue of an identity
                                                                    card to a Greek national.
Action brought on 30 March 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic             (1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), 19.10.1968, p. 485.
                                                                    (2 ) OJ L 172 of 28.6.1973, p. 14.
                        (Case C-85/98)                              (3 ) OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 26.
                                                                    (4 ) OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 28.
                         (98/C 184/08)
                                                                    (5 ) OJ L 317 of 18.12.1993, p. 59.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case C-214/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of the word mark BUDWEISER — Opposition — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 — Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 — Submission of evidence ‘in due time’ — Certificate of renewal for the earlier mark — Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik
   (Case C-214/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of the word mark BUDWEISER - Opposition - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Submission of evidence ‘in due time’ - Certificate of renewal for the earlier mark - Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
   2010/C 246/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Anheuser-Busch Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (represented by: K. Čermák, advokát)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark “BUDWEISER” for goods in class 32 seeking annulment of Decision R 299/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international figurative and word marks “BUDWEISER” and “Budweiser Budvar” for goods in classes 31 and 32.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Anheuser-Busch Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case F-20/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — de Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition — Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules — Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/60

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — de Luca v Commission
   (Case F-20/06) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules - Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 328/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Patricia de Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February 2005 appointing the applicant, an official already graded at A*10 and a successful candidate in a competition for grades A5/A4, to a post as an administrator in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security in so far as it alters her classification in grade from A*10 to A*9

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 31.


title: Case C-61/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Directive 89/48/EEC)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-61/08) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 89/48/EEC)
   2011/C 204/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Christianos, E.-M. Mamouna and A. Samoni-Rantou, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Articles 43 and 45 EC and Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — National rules making pursuit of the profession of notary subject to a nationality requirement

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic, the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-190/10: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament
   (Case T-190/10) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)
   2012/C 138/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Kathleen Egan (Athboy, Ireland) and Margaret Hackett (Borris-in-Ossory, Ireland) (represented by: K. Neary, Solicitor, C. MacEochaidh, SC, and J. Goode, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and D. Moore, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by H. Kranenborg and H. Hijmans, and subsequently by H. Kranenborg and I. Chatelier, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicants the access sought to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant Kathleen Egan and Margaret Hackett the access requested to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament;

               2.

               Orders the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Egan and Mrs Hackett and to refund to the Court cashier the sums advanced by way of legal aid granted to Mrs Egan;

               3.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-177/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb (Request for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefit — Child bonus — National regulation providing for a benefit to be granted by way of an automatic tax rebate for children — Non-cumulation of family benefits)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb
   (Case C-177/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Family benefit - Child bonus - National regulation providing for a benefit to be granted by way of an automatic tax rebate for children - Non-cumulation of family benefits)
   2013/C 367/16
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Respondents: Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i), 3, 4(1)(h) and 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition, 1971(II), p. 416) — Interpretation of Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU, Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (English Special Edition, 1968(II), p. 475) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (English Special Edition, 1972(I), p. 159) — Concept of ‘family benefit’ — Permissibility of a national regulation providing for a benefit in respect of every dependent child by way of tax reduction for workers who carry out their professional activity in the territory of another Member State — Equality of treatment — Suspension of the grant of family benefit in the State of employment in the amount of the family benefits provided by the legislation of the State of residence — Rules to prevent overlapping

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the child bonus introduced by the Law of 21 December 2007 on the child bonus is a family benefit within the meaning of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Case T-348/02: Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Quick Restaurants SA against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 31/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     to the payment of the third, it did not take into
                                                                                consideration certain consequences of the unsuccessful
                                                                                outcome of the restructuring plan and of the infringement
—     annul the contested decision                                              of certain conditions.
      (a)   both in so far as the Commission took formal notice            —    The aid used to cover Alitalia’s financial losses after the
            of the payment of the second tranche of aid to                      restructuring plan had expired constituted unauthorised
            Alitalia, which was authorised by Decision 97/789/                  new aid. In any event, it constituted a misuse of aid, since
            EC of 15 July 1997 and confirmed by                                 it was used to cover financial losses occurring after the
            Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001, and decided                   end of the restructuring plan, that is to say for a use
            not to object to the payment of the third tranche;                  which had not been authorised by the Commission.
      (b) and in so far as it established that the new recapitalis-        —    As regards the defendant’s determination that the new
            ation of Alitalia in the sum of EUR 1 432 million                   recapitalisation of Alitalia in the sum of
            notified by the Italian authorities on 29 and 30 April              EUR 1 432 million notified by the Italian authorities on
            2002 does not constitute State aid;                                 29 and 30 April 2002 does not constitute State aid, it
                                                                                should be stated, in particular in the light of the private
                                                                                investor principle and the absence of analysis of the
—     in the alternative, annul the decision on one of the two                  prospects of profitability of the undertaking, that the
      grounds mentioned above;                                                  Commission erred in not considering the following
                                                                                matters: notwithstanding the existence of option rights,
                                                                                private shareholders in Alitalia did not subscribe to the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the action in any                 new increase in capital; private banks subscribed only
      event.                                                                    after the formal subscription of the State and the price of
                                                                                the new shares was two-thirds of the price of the
                                                                                contemporaneous increase in the capital subscribed
                                                                                exclusively by the State by means of the second and third
                                                                                tranches of aid for restructuring.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested decision, the Commission took formal notice
of the payment of the second tranche of aid by the Italian
Republic for the restructuring of Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane
S.p.A., authorised by Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997 and
confirmed by Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001, and
decided not to object to the payment of the third tranche. It              Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Quick Res-
also decided that the new recapitalisation of Alitalia in the sum          taurants SA against Office for Harmonization in the
of EUR 1 432 million does not constitute State aid.                            Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-348/02)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
                                                                                (2003/C 31/27)
—     Infringement of Article 88(2) of the Treaty, in that as
      Alitalia infringed at least three of the conditions for the
      authorisation of aid, the Commission ought to have                                     (Language of the case: French)
      allowed competing undertakings to submit observations
      before it assessed the compatibility of the payment of the
      second and third tranches of aid with the common
      market.
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
—     Infringement and erroneous application of the Com-                   Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      munity guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructur-          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      ing firms in difficulty, and a failure to state reasons in           26 November 2002 by Quick Restaurants SA, established in
      that, in so far as the Commission decided to take notice             Brussels, represented by Louis Van Bunnen, lawyer, with an
      of the payment of the second tranche and not to object               address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 31/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision
      delivered by the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM on             —     annul Commission Decision A-2661/D-1565 (2002) of
      17 September 2002;                                                       21 September 2002;
—     confirm the remainder of the decision;
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Quick Restaurants SA
munity trade mark:
The Community trade           Figurative mark ‘QUICK’ — Appli-
                                                                         The action is directed against the letter in which the Com-
mark concerned:               cation No 350793, lodged in
                                                                         mission rejected the applicant’s complaint of 5 July 2002
                              respect of goods and services in
                                                                         contesting the tax exemption for aviation fuel under Para-
                              Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 (meat,
                                                                         graph 4(1), Head 3(a), of the German Mineralölsteuergesetz
                              fish, coffee, foodstuffs, pre-pre-
                                                                         (Law on taxation of mineral oil, ‘MinöStG’) and declined to
                              pared dishes, prepared drinks)
                                                                         initiate a State-aid investigation of the exemption of aviation
Decision of the exam-         Registration refused                       fuel under that provision. The applicant submits that the
iner:                                                                    Commission erred in law in its decision in concluding that the
                                                                         unilateral exemption of airline undertakings from the tax on
Decision of the Board of      Confirmation of the contested              mineral oil did not constitute aid because the exemption from
Appeal:                       decision in respect of certain             the tax was covered by Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
                              goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31             1992 (1).
                              (that is to say: pre-prepared
                              dishes) and annulment of the
                              decision in respect of the other
                              goods                                      The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes
                                                                         essential procedural requirements. It is void because the
Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)          Commission did not carefully and comprehensively examine
                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.               the facts submitted to it by the applicant in its complaint.
                              According to the applicant, the            Furthermore, the Commission infringed the obligation to state
                              trade mark is capable of ident-            reasons under Article 253 EC. It did not indicate in detail why
                              ifying the goods concerned.                the submissions of law and of fact by the applicant in the
                                                                         complaint did not suffice to show the existence of State aid. In
                                                                         particular, the Commission ought to have stated why a
                                                                         directive which is based exclusively on Article 93 EC could
                                                                         lead to the inapplicability of Articles 87 and 88 EC. Moreover,
                                                                         the contested decision is contradictory and there is consider-
                                                                         able doubt as to whether it was lawfully adopted.
Action brought on 28 November 2002 by Deutsche Bahn
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                                                                         The applicant also submits that Paragraph 4(1), Head 3(a),
                        (Case T-351/02)                                  MinöStG satisfies all the requirements for the application of
                                                                         Article 87(1) EC. The exemption from the basic obligation to
                                                                         pay excise duty on mineral oils is a benefit with monetary
                        (2003/C 31/28)                                   value without appropriate counter-performance by the airline
                                                                         companies and therefore a financial benefit for the purposes
                  (Language of the case: German)                         of Article 87(1) EC. There is no doubt that there is a
                                                                         competitive relationship between the applicant, as operator of
                                                                         high-speed trains, and airline companies with regard to the
                                                                         transport of persons between cities and conurbations in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Germany and neighbouring countries, and the airline compani-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               es thereby enjoy a considerable cost advantage over the
European Communities on 28 November 2002 by Deutsche                     applicant as a result of the tax exemption, which leads to a
Bahn AG, Berlin, Germany, represented by M. Schütte, lawyer,             distortion of competition and affects trade between Member
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               States.


title: Case T-381/08: Order of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — DAI v Commission (Agriculture — Sugar — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community — Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 928/2006 — Decision 2008/445/EC — Retroactive restructuring aid)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/9

         Order of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — DAI v Commission
   (Case T-381/08) (1)

   (Agriculture - Sugar - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 928/2006 - Decision 2008/445/EC - Retroactive restructuring aid)
   2012/C 319/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA (Coruche, Portugal) (represented: initially by J. da Cruz Vilaça, L. Romão and A. Mestre, and subsequently by R. Oliveira, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Alfonso and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against Commission Decision 2008/445/EC of 11 June 2008 fixing the amounts per Member State of retroactive restructuring aid for growers and undertakings having restructured in the 2006/07 and 2007/08 marketing years in the framework of the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community (OJ 2008 L 156, p. 20).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-240/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands beer market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Proof of the infringement — Access to the file — Fines — Principle of equal treatment — Reasonable period)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission
   (Case T-240/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands beer market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Proof of the infringement - Access to the file - Fines - Principle of equal treatment - Reasonable period)
   2011/C 226/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Heineken Nederland BV (Zoeterwoude, Netherlands) and Heineken NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and M. de Jong, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet, S. Noë and A Nijenhuis, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents, and M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Netherlands beer market) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Heineken NV and Heineken Nederland BV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Heineken and Heineken Nederland in Article 3(a) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 197 985 937,5;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders Heineken and Heineken Nederland to pay two-thirds of their own costs and of those of the European Commission;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of Heineken and Heineken Nederland.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-497/11 P: Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — ERDF — Reduction in financing — Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece — Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties — Professional secrecy — Rate of financial correction — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/3

         Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-497/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - ERDF - Reduction in financing - Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece - Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties - Professional secrecy - Rate of financial correction - Discretion of the Commission - Judicial review)
   2013/C 101/04
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents, and G. Michailopoulos, dikigóros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2001 in Case T-81/09 Greece v Commission, by which the General Court annulled in part an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted in respect of the Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


20150731043617002015/C 270/453082015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150603363721Case T-308/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3610120150603EN0045361372Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy)
   (Case T-308/15)2015/C 270/45Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. Aliki Busse, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘keep it easy’ — Application No 12 877 924

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2659/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

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


title: Case T-505/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/63

         Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B)
   (Case T-505/12)
   2013/C 26/125
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xiuxiu Cheng (Budapest, Hungary)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2012 in case R 193/2012-5; and.

               —

               Order the Defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘B’, for goods in classes 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8483562

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 401319 of the figurative mark representing a device of extended wings with a geometric design in the middle, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 14

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-183/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 April 2015 — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 April 2015 — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-183/15)
   (2015/C 254/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TSI GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

      Question referred

   Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature (1) and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters as described in more detail in the order fall under subheading 9027 10 10?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 291, p. 1.


title: Case T-214/01: Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 331/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Österreichi-                The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes its
sche Postsparkasse against the Commission of the Euro-                  rights and is unlawful simply because the FPÖ is not an
                      pean Communities                                  applicant within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation
                                                                        No 17 and Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2842/98.
                                                                        The FPÖ does not have any justified interest in bringing the
                        (Case T-213/01)                                 procedure; it only has a political interest. Furthermore, it did
                                                                        not make its application before the procedure initiated by the
                                                                        defendant of its own motion, and it has exhausted or at least
                        (2001/C 331/42)                                 forfeited its right to make an application. Last but not least, by
                                                                        disclosing the objections, the defendant infringed Article 20 of
                                                                        Regulation No 17, and/or Article 287 EC, and the principle of
                  (Language of the case: German)                        the protection legitimate expectations.
                                                                        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 December 1998
                                                                            on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under Articles [81]
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            and [82] of the EC Treaty.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 September 2001 by the Österre-
ichische Postsparkasse represented by Rechtsanwälte M. Klus-
mann, F. Wiemer and A. Reidlinger.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Bank
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 9 August 2001 in Case           für Arbeit und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the
      COMP/36.571 — Austrian banks;                                              Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                       (Case T-214/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/43)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In May 1997 the Commission, on the basis of information
potentially incriminating to various Austrian credit institutions
under cartel law, began Article 81 investigations under                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No 17 into the applicant             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
and seven other Austrian banks.                                         European Communities on 19 September 2001 by the Bank
                                                                        für Arbeit und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft, Vienna, rep-
                                                                        resented by H.J. Niemeyer, with an address for services in
                                                                        Luxembourg.
In June 1997 the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) asked
the Commission to commence a procedure under Article 81
EC against eight Austrian banks suspected of entering into              The applicant claims that the Court should:
restrictive agreements.
                                                                        —     annul the defendant’s decision of 25 July 2001 in Case
                                                                              COMP/36.571 — Austrian banks;
In September 1999 the defendant sent the applicant a
statement of objections relating to infringement of Article 81
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
EC. The defendant later informed the applicant that it intended
to disclose to the FPÖ all the objections raised in the
proceedings under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 (1).
The applicant objected to such disclosure, claiming it to be
impermissible.                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
In November 2000 the defendant sent the applicant a sup-
                                                                        Case T-213/01 (Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Com-
plementary statement of objections and finally informed the
                                                                        mission, not yet published).
applicant in a contested decision that it intended to transmit
both statements of objections to the FPÖ. The applicant is
challenging that decision.