title: Case C-345/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Application of analogous national legislation — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’ — Commercial lease agreements — Shopping centres — Right of the anchor tenant to prevent the lessor letting commercial premises to third parties)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome
   (Case C-345/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Application of analogous national legislation - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’ - Commercial lease agreements - Shopping centres - Right of the anchor tenant to prevent the lessor letting commercial premises to third parties))
   (2016/C 038/10)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’

      Defendant: Konkurences padome

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that a commercial lease agreement for the letting of a large shop or hypermarket located in a shopping centre contains a clause granting the lessee the right to oppose the letting by the lessor, in that centre, of commercial premises to other tenants, does not mean that the object of that agreement is to restrict competition within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               Commercial lease agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to be an integral part of an agreement having the ‘effect’ of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, from which it is found, after a thorough analysis of the economic and legal context in which the agreements occur and the specificities of the relevant market, that they make an appreciable contribution to the closing-off of that market. The extent of the contribution of each agreement to that closing-off effect depends, in particular, on the position of the contracting parties on that market and the duration of that agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-300/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Conselleria de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Conselleria de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU
   (Case C-300/13)
   (2013/C 226/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección 1

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Benferri

      Defendants: Conselleria de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the concept of ‘construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km’ in point 20 of Annex I to Directive 85/337, (1) as amended by Directive 97/11, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the only electricity installations it covers are overhead power lines which reach both those thresholds?

               2.

               Is the concept of ‘… transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables’ in section 3(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, to be interpreted as meaning that the only electrical energy transmission installations it covers are overhead power lines?
               If not:

               3.

               Is the concept of ‘… transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables’ in section 3(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that it covers transformer substations?

               4.

               Is the concept of ‘… transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables’ in section 3(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that it covers transformer substations, although the construction or extension thereof is carried out by means of a project which does not include the construction of an overhead power line?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 27 June 1996 in Case C-293/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout): criminal proceedings against Jacqueline Brandsma (Free movement of goods - Derogations - Protection of public health - Powers of the Member States - Biocides)

text:
No C 336/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
Article 30 of the EC Treaty precludes national legislation                 tests have already been carried out in that other Member
concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles which                       State and their results are available to those authorities
causes the administrative authorities and traders of the                   or may at their request be placed at their disposal.
Member State in question to consider that, where two motor
vehicles of the same model and make are sold in that                  (>) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
Member State after 30 June, only the vehicle which was the
subject of a parallel import would be prohibited from
holding itself out as being of the following model year.
(') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 July 1996
                                                                            in Case C-473/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                         ( First Chamber )                            Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the
                                                                                public service)
                         of 27 June 1996
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/08 )
in Case C-293/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout ): criminal
        proceedings against Jacqueline Brandsma (')                                    (Language of the case: French)
(Free movement ofgoods — Derogations — Protection of
public health — Powers of the Member States —                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                              Biocides)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 96/C 336/07 )
                                                                      In Case C-473/93 : Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Grand
                                                                      Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent : Alain Lorang) —
                                                                      Application for a declaration that, by maintaining a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          nationality requirement in relation to workers who are
         published in the European Court Reports)                     nationals of other Member States as regards access to civil
                                                                      servants ' or public employees ' posts in the public sectors of
In Case C-293/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           research , teaching, health, inland transport, posts and
of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg ( First           telecommunications, and in the water, gas and electricity
Instance Court ), Turnhout ( Belgium ), for a preliminary             distribution services, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Jacqueline                 failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC
Brandsma on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the           Treaty and Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
EC Treaty, the Court ( First Chamber ) composed of:                   No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon                   for workers within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court
( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate-General :            composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
N. Fennelly, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                Kakouris , D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
Administrator, has given a judgment on 27 June 1996 in                ( Presidents    of    Chambers ),    G.    F. Mancini ,     F.   A.
which it rules :                                                      Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                      C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H.
1 . A legal provision of a Member State prohibiting                   Ragnemalm , L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    pesticides for non-agricultural use which have not been           Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar: D. Loutermann
    previously authorized from being marketed, acquired,              Hubeau , Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
    offered, put on display or sale, kept, prepared,                  2 July 1996 , in which it:
    transported, sold, disposed of for valuable
    consideration or free of charge, imported or used,                1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of
    constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a                 Luxembourg nationality to access to civil servants ' and
    quantitative restriction within the meaning ofArticle 30               public employees ' posts involving direct or indirect
    of the EC Treaty.                                                      participation in the exercise of powers conferred by
                                                                           public law and duties designed to safeguard the general
2 . National legislation prohibiting the marketing of a                    interests of the State or of other public authorities in the
     biocidal product containing dangerous substances, such                public sectors of research, education, health , inland
    as the product at issue, without prior authorization from              transport, posts and telecommunications, and in the
     the competent authorities is justified pursuant to                    water, gas and electricity distribution services, the
    Article 36 of the EC Treaty, even if that product has                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    already been authorized for sale in another Member                     obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and
    State. The competent authorities are not, however,                     Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
    entitled unnecessarily to require technical or chemical                15 October 1 968 on freedom of movement for workers
    analyses or laboratory tests when the same analyses or                 within the Community;


title: Case T-96/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIMEO — Earlier Community figurative mark meo — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of the marks — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)
   (Case T-96/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VIMEO - Earlier Community figurative mark meo - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No coexistence of the marks - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2015/C 414/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vimeo LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. MacDonald, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: PT Comunicações, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2013 (Case R 1092/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between PT Comunicações, SA and Vimeo LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vimeo LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 April 1995 in Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gómez de Enterria v. European Parliament

text:
No C 159/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24 . 6 . 95
1 . the Japanese Shipowners ' Association and the European            2 , the costs are reserved.
     Community Shipowners ' Association are granted leave
     to intervene in support of the applicants;
2 . the Freight Transport Association, the Association des
     Utilisateurs des Transports de Fret and the European
     Council of Transport Users ASBL are granted leave to                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     intervene in support of the defendant;                                                     of 27 April 1995
                                                                      in Case T-393/94 : P v. Commission of the European
3 , the applicants ' request for confidential treatment of                                      Communities i 1 )
     certain parts of the file is granted;
                                                                                (No need to give a decision)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/51 )
4 , operation of Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Commission
     Decision 94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty                                (Language of the case: French)
     (IV/34.446 — Trans-Atlantic Agreement) , in so far as
     they prohibit the applicants from jointly exercising             In Case T-393/94, P, represented by Marie Vicelli and
     rate-making authority in respect of the inland portions          Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
     within the Community of through-intermodal transport             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 21
     services, is suspended until delivery ofthe final judgment       Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European
     of the Court of First Instance in the main action;               Communities ( Agent: J. Griesmar ) — application for the
                                                                      annulment of several decisions of the Commission reducing
5 . there is no need to rule on the application for suspension        the rates of reimbursement of hospital expenses to the
     of the operation of those Articles with regard to the            applicant — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
     conclusion of joint service contracts;                           composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and H. Kirschner
                                                                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; Registrar: H.Jung, made an
6 , the application for suspension of the operation of                order on 27 April 1995 of which the operative part is as
                                                                      follows :
     Article 5 of the Decision is dismissed;
7.   costs are reserved.                                               1 . there is no need to give a decision on the application;
(») OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                            2 , the defendant shall bear the costs.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 11 April 1995                              Action brought on 3 April 1995 by Tiziano Boggian against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gómez de Enterria v. European
                             Parliament                                                          ( Case T-92/95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/50 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/52
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gômez de Enterria, an official               An action against the Commission of the European
of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1 995 by
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis             Tiziano Boggian, an independent trader resident in
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. European Parliament               Montagnana ( Padua, Italy), represented by Ivone
 ( Agents : G. Garzon Clariana and M. Peter ) — application            Cacciavillani of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
for suspension of the implementation of the decision of the            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
President of the European Parliament of 19 December 1994               Albert I er .
retiring the applicant from her post pursuant to Article 50 of
the Staff Regulations — the President of the Court of First            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Instance made an order on 1 1 April 1995 , the operative part
 of which is as follows :
                                                                       — annul Commission Decision No C(91 ) 1725 of 29 July
                                                                              1991 (not published ), approving and granting EEC
 1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                       financing for the ' Operational programme for the


title: Case T-308/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/27

         Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)
   (Case T-308/16)
   (2016/C 287/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ClaimsExcellence’ — Application No 13 847 462

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2358/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case C-443/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Pordenone by order of that Court of 20 November 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Nicolas Schreiber

text:
8.2.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 31/11
     (the general rule) of the AuslG, nor can the last mentioned        —       Immediate expulsion in non-urgent cases: in German
     provision fill out the terms of the first mentioned                        administrative practice it is found as a general rule —
     provision, because it conflicts with the terms of the                      almost systematically — that there exists a particular
     provision to be filled out. This contradictory legal situ-                 interest in immediate enforcement of the expulsion for
     ation creates problems when the provision is applied in                    the purposes of Paragraph 80(2), Head 4, of the VwGO.
     practice and consequently produces decisions which are                     The rules laid down in Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 64/
     contrary to Community law.                                                 221/EEC thereby lose any significance. However, as
                                                                                German law on foreign nationals does not provide a
                                                                                specific procedure before an independent authority
                                                                                within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC,
                                                                                in the case of the expulsion of citizens of the Union
—    Inadequate examination of danger to public order in the                    suspensive effect may be excluded by an order under
     case of the expulsion of citizens of the Union with limited                Paragraph 80(2), Head 4, of the VwGO only when
     residence permits. When applying Paragraph 12 of                           ‘urgency’ exists within the meaning of Article 9(1) of
     the Aufenthaltsgesetz/EWG, in many cases the German                        Directive 64/221/EEC. In the Commission’s view, such a
     authorities erroneously apply the broad interpretation of                  case of urgency can be held to exist only if immediate
     the notion of ‘public safety and order’ in German                          enforcement is the only means to avert a specific, direct
     administrative law and fail to take into account the                       and serious danger to public order and the existence of
     materially more restrictive interpretation of that notion                  that enhanced requirement has been specifically estab-
     in the case-law of the Court of Justice (‘Bouchereau’),                    lished by the authority. Furthermore, in the Commission’s
     which, in conjunction with Article 39(4) and Article 46                    view, the principle of proportionality also requires, at
     EC, is alone authoritative. This is clearly due to the fact                least in the case of long-term resident citizens of the
     that the authorities reach, a contrario from the particular                Union, to order the immediate enforcement of an expul-
     scheme of Paragraph 12(1) of the Aufenthaltsgesetz/                        sion order only in exceptional cases for particularly
     EWG, a conclusion which is obvious but incompatible                        serious and urgent reasons. The German legal position
     with Community law, namely that the existence of serious                   and administrative practice must be unambiguously and
     public order grounds is to be examined only in the case                    unmistakably clarified in that regard too.
     of persons who possess an unlimited EC residence permit
     within the meaning of the second sentence of the
     abovementioned rule, whereas other citizens of the Union
                                                                        (1 )  OJ, English Special Edition, 1963-1964, p. 117 .
     may therefore be expelled even on ‘simple’ public order            (2 )  OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (II), p. 475.
     grounds.                                                           (3 )  OJ L 172 of 28.6.1973, p. 14.
                                                                        (4 )  OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 26.
—    General, preventative considerations unlawfully taken
     into account: Expulsion as the general rule, on the basis
     of a criminal conviction for the particular offence, as a
     means of general prevention of crime is incompatible
     with the principles applicable to the freedom of move-
     ment for workers who are nationals of a Member State.
     An administrative practice based on Article 47(1) and (2)          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
     of the AuslG and thus undoubtedly also on general,                 Pordenone by order of that Court of 20 November 2002
     preventative considerations, is contrary to Community                   in the criminal proceedings against Nicolas Schreiber
     law.
                                                                                (Case C-443/02)
—    Failure to take adequate account of the principle of
                                                                                (2003/C 31/16)
     proportionality with regard to the fundamental right to
     respect for family life: In many cases the family situation
     of the person concerned (in view of the rule in Article 17
     AuslG) has not, or has not been sufficiently, taken into
     account, even though the ‘public order’ exception must
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     be applied in accordance with human rights. The Com-
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Pordenone
     mission refers in this regard in particular to the case-law
                                                                        (Pordenone District Court) of 20 November 2002, received at
     of the European Court of Human Rights, according to
                                                                        the Court Registry on 6 December 2002, for a preliminary
     which even recidivists involved in serious crime without
                                                                        ruling in the criminal proceedings against Nicolas Schreiber
     an individual right of residence cannot, having regard to
                                                                        on the following questions:
     all the specific circumstances of the person concerned,
     always be expelled. In its view, the German legal situation
     and administrative practice in that regard calls for unam-         1.      Must Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 98/8/EC ( 1), in
     biguous and unmistakable clarification.                                    the light of the general rules which that directive intro-
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/12                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
       duces into the Community legal order, be construed as               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
       meaning that the terms ‘biocidal products’ and ‘low-risk            Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July
       biocidal product’ refer solely to products whose biocidal           2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against
       function depends on active substances added to those                    Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE
       products by chemical or biological means through pro-
       cesses expressly designed to add such substances in order                                    (Case C-444/02)
       to confer on those products a biocidal function?
                                                                                (2003/C 31/17)
2.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC, in the light of
       the general rules which that directive introduces into the
       Community legal order, be construed as meaning that the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       term ‘basic substance’ refers to substances which are not           European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio
       added to a product in order to enable it to perform an              Athinon (Single-Judge Court of First Instance, Athens) of
       intended biocidal function but such a biocidal function is          11 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on 9 December
       performed in addition to the function normally perfor-              2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fixtures Marketing
       med by that product during its use (as an example: liquid           Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphai-
       for a dishwasher which, by virtue of the addition of a              rou AE (Football-match-results-forecasting Undertaking) on
       substance designed to improve its detergent function,               the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC and the sui
       may also have a bactericidal function)?                             generis right thereunder in connection with the following
                                                                           issues:
3.     May a piece of red cedar wood, simply by virtue of the              1.    the concept of databases and the scope of Directive 96/
       fact that it is marketed as being ‘anti-moth’, be classifiable            9/EC ( 1) and in particular Article 7 thereof (sui generis
       as a ‘biocidal product’, as a ‘low-risk biocidal product’ or              right).
       as a ‘basic substance’ within the meaning of Directive 98/
       8/EC, bearing in mind that: (a) the wood in question has            2.    Further to determination of the scope of the directive,
       in no way been treated chemically or biologically; (b) the                whether the lists of football fixtures enjoy protection as
       substance on which the effects attributed to the wood                     databases over which there is a sui generis right in favour
       may depend is naturally present in the product; (c) the                   of the maker and with what consequences.
       product is substantially marketed as found in its natural
       state?                                                              3.    How exactly the database right is infringed and whether
                                                                                it is protected in regard to rearrangement of the contents
                                                                                of the database.
4.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC be construed as
       meaning that it is only if a ‘basic substance’ is included
       on the list referred to in Annex IB that that substance             (1 ) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
       may be exempted from the authorisation and registration
       provided for the marketing in the Member States of
       products covered by Article 2, with such inclusion on the
       list referred to in Annex IB thus acquiring constitutive
       effectiveness for all purposes?
                                                                           Appeal brought on 9 December 2002 by Glaverbel against
5.     Must Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC, by reference to                the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second
       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, be construed as meaning that              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
       a product such as that described in Question 3, placed              Communities in case T-36/01 (1) between Glaverbel and
       lawfully on the market in a Member State without any                the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
       need for authorisation or registration in that Member                              (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM)
       State, may be made subject to authorisation or regis-
       tration in another Member State in which it is sub-                                         (Case C-445/02 P)
       sequently marketed by reason of the fact that the product
       in question is not included on the list referred to in
       Annex IB to Directive 98/8/EC?                                                                (2003/C 31/18)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
( 1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products       European Communities in case T-36/01 between Glaverbel
     on the market (OJ L 123 of 24.04.1998, p. 1).                         and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM), was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
                                                                           2002 by Glaverbel, represented by Susanne Möbus, Attorney
                                                                           at Law, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-550/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against E, F (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Articles 2 and 3 — Inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities implicated in acts of terrorism — Transfer to an organisation, by members of that organisation, of funds originating from the collection of donations and the sale of publications)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/15

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against E, F
   (Case C-550/09) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Articles 2 and 3 - Inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities implicated in acts of terrorism - Transfer to an organisation, by members of that organisation, of funds originating from the collection of donations and the sale of publications)
   2010/C 234/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties in the main proceedings

   E, F

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) — Challenge, before the national court, to the validity of a Council decision including an organisation on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of that regulation, where the decision has not been contested by the organisation in question — Scope of the regulation’s provisions prohibiting economic resources from being made available to an organisation included on the list — Transfer of economic resources within the organisation by persons forming part of it

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In respect of the period prior to 29 June 2007, the inclusion of Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi (DHKP-C) on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism is illegal and, accordingly, can form no part of the basis for a criminal conviction linked to an alleged infringement of that regulation.

               2.

               Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation No 2580/2001 must be interpreted as covering the transfer to a legal person, group or entity on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of that regulation, by a member of that legal person, group or entity, of funds and other financial assets or economic resources collected or obtained from third persons.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-225/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger
   (Case C-225/07)
   (2007/C 183/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Landau/Isar
   Party to the main proceedings
   Rainer Günther Möginger
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b), 8(2) and (4) and 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1999 on driving licences (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997 (hereinafter: the directive) to be interpreted as meaning
               that they preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State even where its holder has, in the first Member State, been subject to a measure withdrawing or cancelling the right to drive issued by that Member State and where a temporary ban on obtaining a new right to drive, with which that measure is coupled, had not yet expired before the date on which the driving licence was issued by the other Member State?

               2.

               If so:
               Is that directive to be interpreted as meaning that the principle of mutual recognition may be ignored by the courts and authorities of the first Member State where, on grounds of abuse of a right, the holder of the right to drive is barred in a specific case from relying on the right to drive acquired in another EU Member State, in particular where an overall appraisal of the objective circumstances shows that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the Community rules, the purpose of the rules in the directive has not been achieved and where there is a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the Community rules, in the form of recognition of the right to drive acquired in another EU Member State, by arbitrarily creating the conditions laid down for acquiring it,
               above all,

                           —

                           where, according to the information available to the first Member State, when the driving licence was issued the holder of the driving licence had his normal residence in that Member State and not in the Member State which issued the driving licence, and

                           —

                           where, according to the information available to the first Member State, it must be assumed, on the basis of objective and judicially verifiable facts, that the holder of the right to drive would not have had any possibility of lawfully acquiring a right to drive in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Case T-207/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/32

         Action brought on 24 April 2015 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
   (Case T-207/15)
   (2015/C 245/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, M. Lester and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 39, 14.2.2015, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 39, 14.2.2015, p. 3), insofar as each applies to the applicant;

               —

               alternatively, declare that Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (as amended) (‘the Decision’) and Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (as amended) (‘the Regulation’), are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has, by redesignating the applicant on the basis of the same factual allegations that were rejected by the General Court in Case T-565/12, NITC v Council (3 July 2014) (‘NITC v Council’), acted in violation of the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and finality, and infringed the applicant’s right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the relevant criterion for listing, namely that the applicant provides financial or logistical support to the Government of Iran. The financial support allegation was rejected by the General Court in NITC v Council. The applicant provides no financial benefit to the Government of Iran, and the Government of Iran derives no financial benefit from the applicant, through its shareholders, or otherwise. As held in NITC v Council, indirect financial support is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. The logistical support allegation is no more than a recharacteristation of allegations already made in NITC v Council. In any event, there is not the requisite causal link between the activities of the applicant and nuclear proliferation, and any support provided by the applicant is at most indirect logistical support.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to (a) inform the applicant of the actual grounds for its redesignation or provide the evidence adduced against it; and/or (b) provide the applicant with an opportunity to make known its views on the actual grounds and/or the evidence adduced against it prior to its redesignation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. The impact of the Contested Measures on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to its business, and to its reputation and goodwill worldwide. The designation of the application will also have potentially devastating effects on the pension fund beneficiaries of the applicants’ shareholders, who are all innocent Iranian citizens, many of whom are retired. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, in support of the application for a declaration, alleging that if, contrary to the arguments advanced in the second plea, Article 20(1)(c) of the Decision and Article 23(2)(d) of the Regulation are to be interpreted so as to capture (a) indirect financial support and/or (b) logistical support that has no link with nuclear proliferation, those criteria would be unlawful and disproportionate to the objectives of the Decision and Regulation. The arbitrary width and scope of the criteria that would result from this broader interpretation would exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve those objectives. The provision would therefore be unlawful.


title: Case C-106/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-328/13 Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/3

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-328/13 Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and European Central Bank

   (Case C-106/15 P)
   (2015/C 178/03)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Liasidou and K. Efstathiou, dikigori)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellant, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

               —

               set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

               —

               set aside the order that the appellant should pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

               1.

               The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

               2.

               The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

               3.

               The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law.
               In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

               4.

               In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellant should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.


title: Case C-487/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SC Total Waste Recycling SRL v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Shipments — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Shipments within the European Union — Point of entry different from that specified in the notification and in the prior consent — Essential change to the details of a shipment of waste — Illegal shipment — Proportionality of the administrative fine)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SC Total Waste Recycling SRL v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
   (Case C-487/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Shipments - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipments within the European Union - Point of entry different from that specified in the notification and in the prior consent - Essential change to the details of a shipment of waste - Illegal shipment - Proportionality of the administrative fine))
   (2016/C 038/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Total Waste Recycling SRL

      Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2008 of 15 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the shipment of waste, such as that referred to in Annex IV to that regulation, in the country of transit at a different border crossing point than that which is provided in the notification document and which the competent authorities consented to, must be considered to be an essential change made to the details and/or conditions of the shipment which received consent, so that the fact of not having informed the competent authorities of that change results in the shipment of waste being illegal because it was ‘effected in a way which is not specified materially in the notification’ within the meaning of Article 2(35)(d) of that regulation.

               2.

               Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 669/2008, according to which the penalties applied by the Member States for infringement of the provisions of that regulation must be proportionate, must be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of a fine penalising the illegal shipment of waste, such as that referred to in Annex IV to that regulation, in the country of transit at a border crossing point which differs from that provided in the notification document which had been consented to by the competent authorities, of which the basic amount is the same as the fine imposed for a breach of the requirement to obtain consent and to give prior notification in writing, is to be considered to be proportionate only if the circumstances of the infringement make it possible to find that they involve equally serious infringements. It is for the national court to determine, by taking into account all the factual and legal circumstances of the case before it, and, in particular, the risks which may be created by that infringement in the field of the protection of the environment and human health, whether the amount of the penalty does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring a high level of protection of the environment and human health.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Action brought on 22 August 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-285/96)

text:
  5 . 10 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 294/9
  Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar, with an           — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Article 7 of the Directive requires Member States to establish
                                                                           programmes in order to reduce pollution of the waters by
  — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws , regulations or            the substances within List II . The Directive did not expressly
        administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 provide for a date of entry into force . In a letter of
        Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October 1993 ( ] )             3 November 1976 , the Commission proposed the following
        adapting to technical progress Council Directive                   timetable to the Member States : an authorization system by
        91 / 157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing               15 September 1978 ; programmes to reduce pollution by the
        certain dangerous substances ( 2 ), or by failing to notify        substances within List II by 15 September 1981 ;
        such measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its        programmes to take effect by 15 September 1986 . Those
        obligations under that Directive,                                  periods expired without the Italian Republic having
                                                                           adopted the programmes necessary to comply with the
  — order the French Republic to pay the costs .                           Directive .
- Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (M OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
  Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
  directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on
  each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States
  are required to observe the time limits laid down in
  directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
  31 December 1993 without the French Republic having
  brought into force the necessary provisions in order to                  Action brought on 22 August 1996 by the Commission of
  comply with the Directive referred to the Commission 's                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
  application .                                                                                Case C-286/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/ 19 )
  (') OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51 .
  ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           22 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, of its Legal
                                                                           Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
  Action brought on 22 August 1996 by the Commission of                    Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                              Case C-285/96 )                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               ( 96/C 294/ 18 )
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                     within the prescribed period the laws , regulations or
  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           administrative provisions necessary to comply with :
  22 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
  Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, of its Legal                    — Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of 22 July 1991
  Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                         adapting to technical progress for the 14th time
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its                      Council      Directive        67/548/EEC      on     the
  Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         approximation of laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                                     classification , packaging and labelling of dangerous
                                                                                substances ('),
  — declare that, by failing to adopt programmes to reduce
                                                                               — Commission Directive 93 / 86/EEC of 4 October
        pollution containing quality objectives for the 99
        dangerous substances listed in the Annex, or by failing to                  1993 adapting to technical progress Council
                                                                                Directive 91 / 1 57/EEC on batteries and accumulators
        communicate to the Commission the programmes and
        the result of their application, contrary to Article 7 of                  containing certain dangerous substances ( 2 ),
        Commission Directive 76/464/EEC ( '), and by not
        providing the Commission with the information                           — Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of 29 October
        requested in that connection , contrary to Article 5 of the                 1993 concerning the list of substances referred to in
        EC Treaty, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                   Article 13 ( 1 )         (5)      of Council   Directive
        obligations under that Treaty, and                                         67/548/EEC ( 3 ),


title: Case T-427/09: Action brought on 22 October 2009 — centrotherm Clean Solutions v OHIM — Centrotherm Systemtechnik (CENTROTHERM)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/39

         Action brought on 22 October 2009 — centrotherm Clean Solutions v OHIM — Centrotherm Systemtechnik (CENTROTHERM)
   (Case T-427/09)
   2009/C 312/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co KG (Blaubeuren, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (Brilon, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 in Case R 6/2008-4, in so far as the application for a declaration of revocation was dismissed in respect of the following goods:

                           —

                           Class 11 — Heating exhausts; chimney flues; boiler pipes for heating installations; brackets for gas burners; mechanical parts for heating installations; mechanical parts for gas installations; accumulators; chimney blowers;

                           —

                           Class 17 — Pipe links; pipe sockets; pipe fittings; tubes; all of the above goods not made out of metal;

                           —

                           Class 19 — Pipes; piping, in particular for construction purposes; branch pipes; chimney pipes;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘CENTROTHERM’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 17, 19 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 301 019)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revocation of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Cancellation Division and partial revocation of the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with Rule 40(5) and Rule 22(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (2) in so far as the proof of use submitted by the proprietor of the trade mark was found to be sufficient so as to establish a genuine use of the trade mark at issue for the purposes of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-377/00: Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
9.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/13
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        directives are to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                       upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under the
                                                                       first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,          particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance              of the Community.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 8 April 1999
without Ireland having adopted all the measures necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the        The Commission finds that, to date, despite the expiry of the
Commission.                                                            prescribed period, the Italian Republic has not forwarded the
                                                                       reports on the implementation of the directives referred to in
                                                                       the Commission’s application.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.
                                                                       (3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic               Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                        (Case C-376/00)                                                         of Luxembourg
                        (2000/C 355/25)                                                         (Case C-377/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/26)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvelbaek,
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
of its Legal Service, and Roberto Amorosi, judge on
                                                                       ties on 13 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
secondment to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       Communities represented by Bernard Mongin, a member of its
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Kirchberg.
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to forward within the period            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt or notify the laws,
      prescribed by Article 5 of Council Directive                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      91/692/EEC (1) of 23 December 1991 standardizing and                   comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March
      rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain                 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1),
      Directives relating to the environment the reports                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      required under:                                                        Directive;
      —     Article 18 of Council Directive 75/439/EEC (2) of          2.    Order Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as
            amended by Directive 87/101/EEC;                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Article 121 of Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste as        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
            amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;                           submitted in Case C-335/00 (2); the period prescribed by
                                                                       Article 14(1) of Directive 98/18/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
      each of which as amended by Article 5 of the abovemen-
      tioned Directive 91/692/EEC, in respect of the period
      1995-1997, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its         (1) OJ L 144 of 15.5.1998, p. 1.
      obligations under the abovementioned directives.                 (2) OJ C ...
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-94/14: Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/52

         Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern)
   (Case T-94/14)
   2014/C 135/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2013 given in Case R 495/2013-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a coloured pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 177 631

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-25/13: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark 4711 Aqua Mirabilis — Earlier Community word mark AQUA ADMIRABILIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis)
   (Case T-25/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark 4711 Aqua Mirabilis - Earlier Community word mark AQUA ADMIRABILIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 112/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen and S. Hühner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sacra Srl (Venice, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2012 (Case R 1601/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Sacra Srl and Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-490/07: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Notartel v OHIM — SAT.1 (R.U.N.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark R.U.N. — Earlier Community and national word marks ran — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Partial refusal of registration)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Notartel v OHIM — SAT.1 (R.U.N.)
   (Case T-490/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark R.U.N. - Earlier Community and national word marks ‘ran’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Partial refusal of registration)
   2010/C 37/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Bosshard and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2007 (Case R 1267/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-532/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public procurement — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Emergency ambulance services)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-532/03) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Emergency ambulance services)
   (2008/C 51/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Wiedner and X. Lewis, Agents, and J. Flynn QC))

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, A. Collins SC, E. Regan SC and C. O'Toole, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, C. Wissels and P. van Ginneken, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Arrangements for the provision of an emergency ambulance service — Obligation to arrange prior advertising — Principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.


title: Case F-71/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 September 2015 — De Simone v ECDC

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 September 2015 — De Simone v ECDC
   (Case F-71/15) (1)

   (2015/C 363/59)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 50.


title: Case C-428/01: Reference. for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of 15 October 2001 in the case of Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA

text:
5.1.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/19
2.   Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom           2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, in light of the
     to provide services or does it also or solely concern                   considerations set out in the grounds hereof can the
     conditions of access to employment within the meaning                   transitional rules under examination come within the
     of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association                    provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey?                                             3.    If the answer to Question 2 is negative, in light of the
                                                                             general principles of Community law and in particular
                                                                             those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can the tran-
3.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association                    sitional rules under examination be deemed compatible
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                         with the EC Treaty and the Community legal order?
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey also to be applied to Turkish
     employees of an employer with its seat in Turkey who,
     as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international
     haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the
     Community without belonging to the (legitimate) labour
     force of that Member State?
4.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
     of the Association between the European Economic                  Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) by judgment of 2 November
     Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting               2001 in the case of Philippe Mertens against État belge
     a Member State of the Community in general from
     introducing national provisions which, in comparison
     with the position under national law on 1 December                                         (Case C-431/01)
     1980, lay down new restrictions on access to the
     employment market for Turkish workers, or does that
     provision prohibit the introduction of new restrictions                                      (2002/C 3/30)
     only in respect of the employment or continued employ-
     ment of workers who were already legally resident and
     employed in Germany before the entry into force of the
     new restriction?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 2 November 2001 of the
                                                                       Cour d’appel de Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) (Court of
                                                                       Appeal, Mons, 6th fiscal chamber), received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 7 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of Philippe Mertens against État belge (Belgian State), on
                                                                       the following question:
Reference. for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of 15 October
    2001 in the case of Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA                   Does Article 39 and/or Article 43 of the Treaty establishing
                                                                       the European Community preclude legislation by a Member
                        (Case C-428/01)                                State under which, for assessment to tax of individuals, a
                                                                       business loss suffered in that Member State by an individual
                                                                       residing in that Member State in the course of a previous
                          (2002/C 3/29)                                period of assessment may be deducted from the profit of that
                                                                       individual for a subsequent period of assessment, only to the
                                                                       extent that the business loss may not be set off against
                                                                       emoluments relating to that earlier period of assessment
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 arising from a salaried activity carried on by that individual in
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District            another Member State, and if the business loss thus set off may
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court            be deducted neither in that Member State nor in the other
of 15 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry           State from the taxable income of that individual for assessment
on 31 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            to tax of individuals, although if the individual had carried on
Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA on the following questions:               his salaried activity in the same Member State as that in which
                                                                       he carries on the self-employed activity, the business losses
                                                                       could be properly and lawfully deducted from the taxable
1.   On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may                 income of that individual?
     transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
     of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
     and come within the scope of the prohibition under
     Article 87 EC?


title: Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Athanasios Vatsouras (C-22/08), Josif Koupatantze (C-23/08) v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900 (European citizenship — Free movement of persons — Articles 12 EC and 39 EC — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(2) — Assessment of validity — Nationals of a Member State — Professional activity in another Member State — Level of remuneration and duration of the activity — Retention of the status of worker — Right to receive benefits in favour of job-seekers)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Athanasios Vatsouras (C-22/08), Josif Koupatantze (C-23/08) v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900
   (Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08) (1)

   (European citizenship - Free movement of persons - Articles 12 EC and 39 EC - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Assessment of validity - Nationals of a Member State - Professional activity in another Member State - Level of remuneration and duration of the activity - Retention of the status of ‘worker’ - Right to receive benefits in favour of job-seekers)
   2009/C 180/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Athanasios Vatsouras (C-22/08), Josif Koupatantze (C-23/08)

      Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Legality of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p.77) — Interpretation of Article 12 EC and Article 39 EC — Right to social assistance benefits of a national of another Member State who is unemployed and has previously been in minor employment in the Member State concerned — National rules excluding nationals of other Member States from receipt of social assistance where the maximum period of residence referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC has been exceeded and there is no other right of residence.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               With respect to the rights of nationals of Member States seeking employment in another Member State, the consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor which might affect the validity of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC;

               2.

               Article 12 EC does not preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union from receipt of the social assistance benefits granted to nationals of third countries.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case F-29/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/44

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-29/14)
   2014/C 184/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the PMO’s decisions to annul and replace the initial proposals to transfer pension rights acquired prior to employment by the European Parliament after the applicant was transferred to the Commission.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 18 December 2013, notified to the applicant by e-mail on 19 December 2013, rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 9 September 2013 against the PMO’s decisions of 10 June 2013;

               —

               In addition, annul, so far as it is necessary, the PMO’s decisions of 10 June 2013 as complained against by the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure and to pay all necessary expenses incurred in the course of these proceedings, including travel and accommodation costs and lawyers’ fees, pursuant to Article 91B of those Rules.


10.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/23
2. order the defendant to pay the costs.                                        Removal from the register of Case C-218/99 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 163/43)
In the Commission’s view, the practice followed in Austria
does not accord with the principle of proportionality (Article           By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of
30 EC). That practice fails to take account of the fact that             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
vitamins and mineral nutrients may be harmful to a greater or            from the register of Case C-218/99: Commission of the
lesser degree. It would be less restrictive to fix a limit for each      European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
individual mineral nutrient and to require any preparation
with a nutrient content in excess of that limit to be classified         (1) OJ C 266 of 7.8.1999.
as a medicinal product. It seems too sweeping, therefore, to
take the daily dose alone as the determining criterion.
At the same time, the practice referred to fails to take account
of the fact that the Member State concerned is required to
state, in relation to each individual product, that it constitutes
a serious health risk. It is unacceptable to require the applicant
to prove that a substance is not harmful, since it is for the                   Removal from the register of Case C-361/99 (1)
Member State itself to show that a higher concentration
presents a health risk where the critical limits accepted by the                                 (2000/C 163/44)
scientific bodies are not reached.
                                                                         By order of 16 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-361/99 (reference for a preliminary
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/99 (1)                    ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien):
                         (2000/C 163/41)                                 Silveria Gäng v Republic of Austria.
By order of 13 March 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal              (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
from the register of Case C-406/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-438/98 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-221/98 (1)                                            (2000/C 163/45)
                         (2000/C 163/42)
                                                                         By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the First Chamber
By order of 14 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has                  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-438/98:
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-221/98:                  Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.                Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 278 of 14.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case T-9/11: Action brought on 6 January 2011 — Air Canada v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/25

         Action brought on 6 January 2011 — Air Canada v Commission
   (Case T-9/11)
   2011/C 72/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Air Canada (Saint Laurent, Canada) (represented by: J. Pheasant and T. Capel, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision, including Articles 2 and 3, or, in the alternative, annul parts of the decision under Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               annul the fine or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine, including a reduction of the fine to zero, under Article 261 TFEU;

               —

               order that the Commission takes the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court under Article 266 TFEU; and

               —

               order that the Commission pays the costs incurred by Air Canada in relation to this application and all subsequent stages of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence since the Commission materially altered its case between the statement of objections and the decision and therefore based its decision on a new factual and legal assessment upon which the applicant was afforded no opportunity to be heard.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that:

                           —

                           the decision is based on inadmissible evidence since the material evidence on which the Commission relies in the decision against the applicant is inadmissible;

                           —

                           in retaining certain evidence against the applicant whilst considering the same or substantially similar evidence insufficient to prove an infringement against certain other addressees of the statement of objections and in failing to take account of factual corrections and clarifications by the applicant, the Commission has infringed the EU law principle of equal treatment and has failed to apply the correct standard of proof under EU law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that there is no infringement in which the applicant participated since:

                           —

                           there is no finding in Articles 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision that the applicant has participated in the single and continuous infringement described in the statement of reasons;

                           —

                           the Commission has not satisfied the relevant legal conditions under Article 101(1) TFEU and the applicable jurisprudence to attribute liability for a single and continuous infringement to the applicant;

                           —

                           on the basis of the evidence which, in the light of the second plea, the Commission is legally entitled to retain for the purposes of its re-assessment of objections against the applicant, the decision does not prove any infringement by the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure to define or, alternatively, to correctly define the relevant market in breach of the applicable legal obligation established in EU jurisprudence and in particular, in breach of the principles of certainty and of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fine should be annulled in its entirety or, in the alternative, should be significantly reduced (including to zero) on the basis of the other pleas and on the Commission’s failure to apply the EU law principle of equal treatment when assessing the level of the fine.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging the lack of reasoning in breach of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU.