title: Case T-511/09: Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Niki Luftfahrt v European Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/27

         Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Niki Luftfahrt v European Commission
   (Case T-511/09)
   2010/C 80/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission’s decision of 28 August 2009‘State Aid C 6/2009 (ex N 663/2008) — Austria Austrian Airlines — Restructuring Plan’ in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 264 TFEU (formerly the first paragraph of Article 231 EC); and

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C (2009) 6686 final of 28 August 2009 concerning State aid in the course of the Austrian State’s sale of its shares in the Austrian Airlines group to Deutsche Lufthansa AG (C 6/2009 (ex 663/2008)). In that decision the Commission takes the view that, subject to certain conditions, the restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Austria to Austrian Airlines is compatible with the common market, provided that the restructuring plan notified to the Commission is implemented in full.
   In support of its action for annulment the applicant, which operates a privately financed airline and lodged a complaint with the Commission regarding the restructuring aid at issue, submits, first, that the Commission has infringed Article 87(1) and (3)(c) EC, Article 88(2) EC and the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2). In particular it claims that the Commission failed to appreciate that:

               —

               the beneficiary of the aid at issue was not Austrian Airlines but Lufthansa, which is not a firm in difficulty and is therefore not a firm which merits aid,

               —

               neither Austrian Airlines nor Lufthansa has provided an appropriate contribution of its own to the restructuring of Austrian Airlines,

               —

               the notified restructuring measures are not in accordance with the guidelines, and

               —

               the compensatory measures offered by the Republic of Austria are insufficient to reduce as far as possible negative effects of the aid on trading conditions.

         Moreover, the applicant also submits that the aid at issue is inseparable from conditions which infringe the Community rules on freedom of establishment and thus Article 43 EC.
   It also alleges infringement of Article 253 EC, inasmuch as the Commission has not stated proper reasons for the contested decision, in that:

               —

               it did not ascertain and examine the situation on the relevant markets, in particular the position of the undertaking benefiting from the aid and the position of competitors on the markets, and

               —

               it failed it to take account of the fact that in the past Austrian Airlines has received a large amount of aid that was contrary to Community law.

         Lastly, the applicant complains that the Commission has abused its discretion.


title: Case C-471/03 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2003 (by fax of 10 November 2003) by the Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 between P. & O. European Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. (T-116/01) and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (T-118/01) and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 21/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.1.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                —     principally, if the state of the proceedings so permits,
Bologna — Sezione 1a penale — by order of that Court of                     uphold the claims made at first instance by the appellant
22 September 2003 in the criminal proceedings against                       and, in consequence, annul the Commission’s decision of
                    Mario Filimeno Miraglia                                 29 November 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by
                                                                            Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de
                                                                            Vizcaya or, secondarily, annul Article 2 of the Decision
                        (Case C-469/03)
                                                                            in so far as it orders repayment of ESP 985 500 000,
                                                                            together with interest;
                         (2004/C 21/25)
                                                                      —     if the preceding claim is not allowed, refer the matter
                                                                            back to the Court of First Instance;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bologna
— Sezione 1a penale — (Bologna District Court, First Criminal         —     in either case, order the Commission to pay the costs of
Collegiate Chamber) of 22 September 2003, received at the                   both sets of proceedings.
Court Registry on 10 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Mario Filimeno Miraglia
on the following question:
Does Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen
Agreement of 14 June 1985 apply when the decision of the              Pleas in law and main arguments
court in the first State appears to discontinue prosecution
without adjudicating on the merits of the case and on the sole
premise that proceedings are taking place in another State?           —     Error of law, in that the Court of First Instance interpreted
                                                                            the ‘advantage’ element of the concept of State aid in the
                                                                            light of the principle of a private investor operating in
                                                                            normal market economy conditions, so introducing as a
                                                                            criterion of analysis the criterion of assessing the need for
                                                                            public intervention;
Appeal brought on 12 November 2003 (by fax of                         —     misinterpretation of Article 87 EC, inasmuch as the Court
10 November 2003) by the Diputación Foral de Bizkaia                        of First Instance inferred the existence of State aid because
against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003 by the                      it considered that there was no need for the purchase of
First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                        vouchers;
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 between P. & O. European
Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. (T-116/01) and the Diputación                  —     error of law, in that the Court of First Instance did not
Foral de Vizcaya (T-118/01) and the Commission of the                       penalise the lack of economic analysis in the Com-
                    European Communities                                    mission’s decision, where it declared that all the sums
                                                                            paid constituted State aid;
                       (Case C-471/03 P)
                                                                      —     clear distortion by the Court of First Instance of the
                         (2004/C 21/26)                                     statement of reasons given for the decision, on the basis
                                                                            solely of lack of transparency in the selection of the
                                                                            shipping company, so as to exclude application of
                                                                            Article 87(2)(a) EC, which gave rise to infringement of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003                   the right to a fair hearing because no real answer was
by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                 given to the arguments put forward in the application;
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-116/01 and T-118/01 between P. & O. European Ferries
(Vizcaya) S.A. (T-116/01) and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya         —     obvious inaccuracy as regards matters taken by the
(T-118/01) and the Commission of the European Communities                   Court of First Instance to be proven facts and incorrect
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     classification of facts, in that the Court of First Instance
Communities on 12 November 2003 by the Diputación Foral                     considered that the aid contained in the 1995 agreement
de Bizkaia, represented by Marta Morales Isasì and Ignacio                  was ‘instituted and implemented in 1992’ and drew the
Sáenz-Cortabarria.                                                          legal inference therefrom that the aid was unlawful, which
                                                                            amounts to clear distortion of the facts, of the Decision
                                                                            itself and of the evidence, and breach of procedural
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 rules, in that the Court of First Instance substituted the
                                                                            Commission’s reasoning for its own in classifying the aid
—     set aside the contested judgment;                                     at issue as illegal;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 21/15
—      error of law, in that the Court of First Instance considered         insurance company and the insurance risk is borne by the
       that the Commission was not required to determine the                latter, are the activities undertaken by that taxable person in
       actual effect on competition and intra-Community trade               execution of the agreement ‘related services performed by
       in its examination of the aid at issue in the light of               insurance brokers and insurance agents’ within the meaning of
       Article 87 EC;                                                       Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive (1)?
—      distortion of the sense of the claims in the application
       and error in law consisting of breach of the procedural              (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
       rules concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
       Court of First Instance did not examine the claims relating              turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
       to the existence of exceptional circumstances and the                    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1-40).
       protection of legitimate expectations;
—      distortion of the sense of the claims in the application
       and error in law consisting of infringement of the
       procedural rules concerning the right to a fair hearing, in
       that the Court of First Instance did not examine the
       claims relating to infringement of Article 10 EC and
       breach of the principle of good and proper administration
       by the Commission;
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
—      error of law consisting of breach of the procedural rules            Ordinario di Milano — Sezione X Penale — by order of
       concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the Court of         that Court of 23 October 2003 in the criminal proceedings
       First Instance did not give a decision on the preparatory            against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlusconi and Giovanni Butti
       inquiry proposed in the application.
                                                                                (Case C-473/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/28)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 7 November
2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
the single taxable entity Arthur Andersen & Co Account-                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               ants c.s.                                    European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                            Milano - Sezione X Penale - (Milan District Court, Tenth
                                                                            Criminal Chamber) of 23 October 2003, received at the Court
                          (Case C-472/03)                                   Registry on 13 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the criminal proceedings against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlus-
                           (2004/C 21/27)                                   coni and Giovanni Butti on the following question:
                                                                            —     Is Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) to be understood
                                                                                as requiring the Member States to establish appropriate
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            penalties not only for failing to disclose company balance
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                 sheets and profit and loss accounts but also for falsifying
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of                             those documents, or other company documents
7 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 12 Nov-                        addressed to the members or the public or any infor-
ember 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecre-                  mation on a company’s assets and liabilities, and econ-
taris van Financiën against the single taxable entity Arthur                      omic and financial situation which the company is
Andersen & Co Accountants c.s. on the following question:                         required to provide in relation to the company or the
                                                                                group of which it forms a part?
Where a taxable person has concluded an agreement with a
(life) assurance company, such as the agreement at issue                    —     Do the requirements that the penalty be effective, pro-
between ACMC and UL, under which that taxable person                              portionate and dissuasive, with which terms the Court
undertakes, for a certain remuneration and with the aid of                        defined the concept of ‘appropriate penalty’ in its judg-
qualified personnel who are expert in the insurance field, most                   ment of 21 September 1989 in Case 68/88 [Commission
of the actual activities related to insurance — including, as a                   v Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR I-2965], refer to the
rule, the taking of decisions that bind the insurance company                     nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or
to enter into insurance contracts and maintaining contact with                    rather also to its application in practice having regard to
the agents and, as the occasion arises, with the insured —                        the structural characteristics of the legal system within
while the insurance contracts are concluded in the name of the                    which it takes effect? and finally


title: Case F-87/08: Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Schuerings v European Training Foundation

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/43

         Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Schuerings v European Training Foundation
   (Case F-87/08)
   (2008/C 327/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gisela Schuerings (Nice, France) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Training Foundation
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the defendant's decision to dismiss the applicant and for an order requiring the European Training Foundation to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the European Training Foundation on 23 October 2007 dismissing the applicant;

               —

               Annul, in so far as is necessary, the express decision of the European Training Foundation of 10 July 2008 rejecting the complaint which the applicant had submitted under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the European Training Foundation to pay the sum of EUR 125 000 in respect of material damage;

               —

               Order the European Training Foundation to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in respect of non-material damage;

               —

               Order the European Training Foundation to pay the costs.


10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-12/96 (1)              removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (reference for a
                         (98/C 312/19)                            preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin): VR-
                                                                  Leasing GmbH v. Margit Bertram.
By order of 26 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
removal from the register of Case C-12/96: Portuguese
Republic v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-351/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/23)
                                                                  By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-39/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/20)                            removal from the register of Case C-351/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Court of             Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-39/98: Commission of          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
the European Communities v. Silena SpA.
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/24)
      Removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (1)              By order of 13 July 1998 the President of the Court of
                         (98/C 312/21)                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (reference for
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of             a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bre-
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               scia): Criminal proceedings against Riccardo Piccaluga.
removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (reference for
a preliminiary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Ente         (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Genova v. Ministero
delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-297/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/25)
                                                                  By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/22)                            removal from the register of Case C-297/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Joined Cases T-539/12 and T-150/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015  — Ziegler v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — International removal services market in Belgium — Removals of officials and other staff of the EU — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Cover quotes — Scope of liability of an institution — Principle of res judicata — Due diligence — Causal link)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015 — Ziegler v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-539/12 and T-150/13) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Competition - International removal services market in Belgium - Removals of officials and other staff of the EU - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cover quotes - Scope of liability of an institution - Principle of res judicata - Due diligence - Causal link))
   (2015/C 065/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium); and Ziegler Relocation SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by the adoption of Commission Decision C (2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and for damage allegedly caused by the continuation of the practice of ‘cover quotes’ after the adoption of Decision C (2008) 926, between 11 March 2008 and 1 January 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Ziegler SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-539/12;

               3.

               Orders Ziegler Relocation SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-150/13.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case T-346/06: Action brought on 6 December 2006 — IMS v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/18

         Action brought on 6 December 2006 — IMS v Commission
   (Case T-346/06)
   (2007/C 20/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: IMS Industria Schio Srl (Schio, Italy) (represented by: F. Colonna and T.E. Romolotti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the Commission's opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006, and a declaration of the applicant's right to compensation for the damage suffered thereby

               —

               an order that the defendant should pay the costs in accordance with Article 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action challenges the Commission's opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses.
   It is to be borne in mind in this connection that, as a result of the adoption by the French Republic of measures relating to mechanical presses manufactured by the applicant IMS, the Commission, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 98/37/EC, examined the justification for those measures, issuing at the end of the investigation the opinion that the measures adopted by the French authorities were justified.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               that the Commission failed to take account of the judgment of the French Conseil d'Etat of 6 November 2002. It claims in this regard that, by its judgment of 6 November 2002 the French Conseil d'Etat had noted the irregularity of the procedure by which the French interministerial decision of 27 June 2001 had been adopted and had ordered its annulment. The Commission has therefore given its own opinion on the justification for an act that, according to the law of the Member State which adopted that act, would appear to be invalid. It follows that the opinion itself is unlawful, given that it is intended to confirm an act already held to be invalid by the competent authorities and which is no longer of any effect in the legal system;

               —

               incorrect appraisal as to substance. According to the applicant, the Commission's appraisal of the substance would appear to be vitiated, since features of the machines produced by IMS were incorrectly assessed from the point of view of technical compliance with the rules applicable;

               —

               with regard to compensation for damage, IMS claims to have suffered and still to suffer, for the reasons set out here, wrongful damage of a non-contractual nature caused it by the Commission, which failed to take into consideration the declaration that the French decision was null and void and made an incorrect appraisal of IMS's products.


title: Case C-526/09: Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/21

         Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-526/09)
   2010/C 51/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial unit ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’, situated in the Matosinhos area, without adequate authorisation, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. (1)

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese Republic has not to date informed the Commission that the licensing of the industrial unit ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’ has been completed.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case T-192/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/28

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council
   (Case T-192/11) (1)

   2011/C 319/61
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-341/09 P: Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2011 — Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) v European Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2011 — Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) v European Commission
   (Case C-341/09 P) (1)

   2011/C 252/50
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2002 in Case T-80/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)

text:
C 19/34                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
       —     default interest in respect of the benefits accruing to the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             applicant under the allowances in issue, for each month
             from October 2000 until the date on which the decision
             of 16 July 2001 takes effect, until full payment of the
             amounts due.                                                                           of 25 October 2002
3.     orders the rate of default interest to be calculated on the basis
       of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main               in Case T-80/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
       refinancing operations, applicable in the period in question,                             European Communities ( 1)
       plus two points.
4.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                             ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                     Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring
                                                                             a concentration incompatible with the common market —
                                                                                Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/65)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 25 October 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-5/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration incompatible with the common                       In Case T-80/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam
market — Rights of the defence — Horizontal and vertical                     (Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-
effects — Foreseeable conglomerate effects — Leveraging —                    broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission
   Potential competition — General effect of reinforcement)                  of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
                                                                             P. Hellström): Application for annulment of the Commission
                            (2003/C 19/64)                                   Decision of 30 January 2002 setting out measures in order to
                                                                             restore conditions of effective competition pursuant to Article
                     (Language of the case: English)                         8(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
                                                                             1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
                                                                             (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel), the Court of
                                                                             First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
In Case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam                     President, J. Pirrung and N. J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission                  25 October 2002, in which it:
of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
P. Hellström): Application for annulment of Commission
Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001 declaring a
concentration to be incompatible with the common market                      (1) Annuls the Commission Decision of 30 January 2002
and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra                                  setting out measures in order to restore conditions of effective
Laval/Sidel), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                          competition pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and N.J. For-                     (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
wood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar,                     concentrations between undertakings (Case No COMP/
has given a judgment on 25 October 2002, in which it:                               M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of
                                                                             (2) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
       30 October 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible
       with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case                           of the applicant, including those relating to the interim
       No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);                                         proceedings.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs of the applicant.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-428/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato/Italy lodged on 26 July 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato/Italy lodged on 26 July 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA
   (Case C-428/13)
   2013/C 313/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS)

      Defendant: Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

      Question referred

   Do Article 8(2) of Directive 95/59/EC (1) of 27 December 1995 and Article 7(2) of Directive 2011/64/EU (2) of 21 June 2011, by providing, respectively, that the proportional rate and ad valorem rate, and the amount of the specific excise duty, ‘must be the same for all cigarettes’, preclude a provision of national law such as Article 39g(4) of Legislative Decree No 504 of 26 October 1995 (as amended by Article 55(2a)[(c)] of Decree-Law No 78 of 31 May 2010, converted, with amendments, in Law No 122 of 30 July 2010), which provides that the excise duty payable on cigarettes with a retail selling price less than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category is to be 115 % of the basic amount, thereby establishing an excise duty at a fixed minimum rate specific to cigarettes with a lower selling price and not a minimum amount of excise duty for all price categories of cigarettes, as permitted by Article 16(7) of Directive 95/59/EC and Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/64/EU?

      (1)  Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).


title: Case C-693/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Il Camaleonte Srl v Questore di Napoli, Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Il Camaleonte Srl v Questore di Napoli, Ministero dell’Interno
   (Case C-693/15)
   (2016/C 106/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Il Camaleonte Srl

      Defendants: Questore di Napoli, Ministero dell’Interno

      Questions referred

               1.

               [Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C 465/2005 Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:781), in which that court] found that the Italian State was in breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services), stating that:

                           (a)

                           it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard;

                           (b)

                           private security guard activities may be pursued by service providers established in another Member State only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto (provincial governor) without taking account of the obligations to which such providers are already subject in their Member State of origin;

                           (c)

                           that authorisation is to be of limited territorial validity and is to be granted subject to consideration of the number and size of private security undertakings already operating in the area in question;

                           (d)

                           private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate;

                           (e)

                           the staff of private security undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work without taking account of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin;

                           (g)

                           [sic] private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation;

                           (h)

                           such undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti;

                           (i)

                           the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation;
                           [to be interpreted as] precluding, of itself, the provincial public security authority (the Questore) from imposing requirements regarding the provisions of services such as those at issue in this case, [which] make it compulsory to deploy a minimum number of security guards (two) for operations entailing the provisions of particular services?

               2.

               Notwithstanding the fact that it is a new question, may the question referred to above may be said to be sufficiently analogous to the questions raised in Case C-462/2005 as to lead to the same outcome, on the basis of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case C-411/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2013 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2013 in Case T-249/11 Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (representation of a chicken)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/39

         Appeal brought on 19 July 2013 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2013 in Case T-249/11 Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (representation of a chicken)
   (Case C-411/13 P)
   2013/C 260/70
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Sanco, SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               deliver a fresh judgment on the substance of the case, dismissing the action brought against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1) since it took as its basis an incorrect interpretation of the scope of the services covered by the trade mark applied for in Classes 35 and 39 of the Nice Classification. The analysis of the similarity of the goods and services is incorrect because the General Court did not take into account that the activities which an operator offers for its own account in relation to its own goods are not included among the services covered by the trade mark applied for. The question whether such services, within the meaning of the Nice Classification, have to be supplied on behalf of third parties is a question of law which must be clarified by the Court of Justice.

               2.

               The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR since it examined the complementarity of goods and services by reference to the importance of a product or a service ‘for the purchase’ of another product or service from the point of view of the relevant public. The General Court failed to consider whether the complementarity of the goods and services is based on an interaction which is such that their use in conjunction with one another is, in strictly objective terms, necessary or desirable.

               3.

               The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in concluding that certain complementary goods and services are automatically similar, despite the low degree of similarity in question, without ascertaining whether the differences arising from other factors were such as to neutralise that complementarity.

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


title: Case T-472/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — SP v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/63

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — SP v Commission
   (Case T-472/09)
   2010/C 24/112
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: SP SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the contested decision non-existent and/or null and void.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By decision of 17 September 2002, the Commission concluded a procedure initiated as early as October 2000 entailing a number of unannounced inspections at the premises of a number of Italian steel undertakings and accused them of participating in an illegal cartel for the purpose of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, namely between 6 December 1989 and July 2000. That decision was challenged by all the undertakings to which it was addressed, including the applicant.
   That action was granted on the basis that the Commission had adopted the contested decision using as a legal basis Article 65 CS, even though the latter was no longer in force at the time when the decision was adopted, the ECSC Treaty having expired five years previously.
   By the decision which is the subject of the present proceedings, the Commission has repeated the claims alleging infringement set out in the initial decision, amending the legal basis of the penalty sought but not the legal basis of the alleged infringement, which remains Article 65 ECSC.
   The applicant puts forward a number of pleas in support of its action, which include the following:

               1.

               The incomplete nature of the decision and infringement of essential procedural requirements, insofar as the decision was notified without its annexes and was, moreover, adopted by the College of Commissioners in an incomplete form.

               2.

               The Commission lacks competence to allege infringement under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty once the treaty has expired.

               3.

               Infringement of and misapplication of the law in Article 23 of Regulation EC No 1/2003, (1) since that provision is intended, first, to impose penalties solely in respect of infringements of the EC Treaty and not the ECSC Treaty and, second, to impose penalties solely in respect of active undertakings which produced a turnover in the preceding business year. It should be pointed out in this connection that the applicant, a company that has gone into liquidation, has demonstrated that it did not achieve any turnover in 2008.

               4.

               Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure in that the Commission continued with the procedure initiated under the aegis of the ECSC rules, following a procedure under the EC Treaty, under which it was not so permitted.

               5.

               Partiality of the administrative procedures and failure to state reasons, in that the Commission omitted arguments that had been included in the file which indicated that the alleged cartel did not exist and/or, in any event, was not effective and overlooked information on the file which demonstrated that the applicant did not participate in some aspects of the cartel.

               6.

               Serious breach of the rights of the defence insofar as the decision was not preceded by a fresh statement of objections.

               7.

               Infringement and misapplication of the law, in that the amount of the basic fine was unduly increased, in particular as regards the increase for duration and the increase for deterrence.

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


title: Case T-848/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/45

      Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB
      (Case T-848/14 P)
      (2015/C 073/56)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought by the appellant

      The appellant claims that the Court should: uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, delete the reference to Article 270 TFEU, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, and set aside paragraphs 16 to 19, 22, 37, 41, 42, 45, 47 to 49, 51, and 53 to 66 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following the adoption of the requested measures of inquiry, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB.
      The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal.

                  1.

                  Failure to give a ruling on the request for deletion of the EIB’s observations and documents;

                  2.

                  Failure to give a ruling on the exclusion of the president of the formation of the court;

                  3.

                  Incorrect interpretation of the judgment in Case T-37/10 P;

                  4.

                  Failure to provide a statement of reasons or provision of an incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the psychological harassment; the appellant asks the Court to order the defendant to cease that harassment;

                  5.

                  Need for the Appeals Committee to give its ruling on the merits as regards the 2006 Staff Report;

                  6.

                  Existence of an interest in the ruling on the annulment of the promotions of 2007, so as to prevent them from becoming definitive.


title: Case C-632/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Income tax — Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source — Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances — Justification — Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen
   (Case C-632/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source - Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances - Justification - Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions))
   (2016/C 016/04)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

      Operative part of the judgment

   In matters of taxation of income, the refusal to grant non-resident taxpayers, who obtain the majority of their income from the source State and who have opted for the taxation at source regime, the same personal deductions as those granted to resident taxpayers under the ordinary taxation regime does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 21 TFEU where the non-resident taxpayers are not subject to an overall tax burden greater than that placed on resident taxpayers and on persons in a similar situation whose circumstances are comparable to those of non-resident taxpayers.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-149/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Spain v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/26

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-149/13)
   2013/C 123/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 — Assistants (AST 3), research sector, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-148/13 Kingdom of Spain v Commission.


title: Case C-132/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Parmigiano Reggiano cheese — Use of the name Parmesan — Obligation on a Member State to proceed on its own initiative against the abuse of a protected designation of origin)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany
   (Case C-132/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese - Use of the name ‘Parmesan’ - Obligation on a Member State to proceed on its own initiative against the abuse of a protected designation of origin)
   (2008/C 92/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March, S. Grünheid and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent), Italian Republic, (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, and A. Dittrich, Agents and M. Loschelder, Rechtsanwalt)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — Lack of measures prohibiting the use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for products which do not comply with the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Case T-291/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Operator ARP v Commission (State aid — Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer — Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Concept of beneficiary — Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Operator ARP v Commission
   (Case T-291/06) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of beneficiary - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)
   2009/C 193/25
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Operator ARP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw Poland) (represented: initially, by J. Szymanowska, subsequently, by J. Szymanowska and P. Rosiak, and, finally, by P. Rosiak, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. in so far as it concerns Operator ARP sp. z o.o.;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-520/08 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o., (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Manpower Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Community word mark I.T.@MANPOWER)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/11

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o., (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Manpower Inc.
   (Case C-520/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Community word mark I.T.@MANPOWER)
   2010/C 11/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o., (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) (represented by: represented by M. Ciresa, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Manpower Inc. (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor, and A. Bryson, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 in Case T-248/05 HUP Uslugi Polska v OHIM — Manpower (I.T.@MANPOWER), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004–4), which in turn dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division which had dismissed an application for a declaration of invalidity of Community word mark ‘I.T.@MANPOWER’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Trade mark with no descriptive character

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case F-77/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Vicente Carajosa and Others v Commission (Civil service — Open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 in the field of fraud prevention — Exclusion of candidates in consequence of their results in the admission tests — Decision of the Appointing Authority — Failure to lodge a complaint — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Vicente Carajosa and Others v Commission
   (Case F-77/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 in the field of fraud prevention - Exclusion of candidates in consequence of their results in the admission tests - Decision of the Appointing Authority - Failure to lodge a complaint - Inadmissibility of the action)
   2011/C 13/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Isabel Vicente Carajosa and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of EPSO’s individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285 of 8.11.2008, p. 57.


title: Case T-159/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bounding feline — Earlier international figurative marks representing a bounding feline — Relative ground for refusal — Sound administration — Proof of the reputation of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline)
   (Case T-159/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bounding feline - Earlier international figurative marks representing a bounding feline - Relative ground for refusal - Sound administration - Proof of the reputation of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 392/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially P. Bullock, and subsequently D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gemma Group Srl (Cerasolo Ausa, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2014 (Case R 1207/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Gemma Group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2014 (Case R 1207/2014-5);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by Puma SE.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-697/13: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2014  — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/18

         Order of the General Court of 21 November 2014 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)
   (Case T-697/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 056/25)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kinnarps AB (Kinnarp, Sweden) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 2272/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Kinnarps AB is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-449/05: Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-449/05) (1)

   (2006/C 294/66)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.02.2006.


title: Case C-75/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa
   (Case C-75/16)
   (2016/C 156/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Verona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli

      Defendant: Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

      Questions referred

               1.

               In so far as it provides that Directive 2013/11 (1)‘shall be without prejudice to Directive 2008/52’, (2) must Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/11 be construed as meaning that it is without prejudice to the possibility for individual Member States of providing for compulsory mediation solely in those cases which do not fall within the scope of Directive 2013/11, that is to say the cases referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2013/11, contractual disputes arising out of contracts other than sales or service contracts, as well as those which do not concern consumers?

               2.

               In so far as it guarantees consumers the possibility of submitting complaints against traders to appropriate entities offering alternative dispute resolution procedures, must Article 1 … of Directive 2013/11 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule which requires the use of mediation in one of the disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/11 as a precondition for the bringing of legal proceedings by the consumer, and, in any event, as precluding a national rule that requires a consumer taking part in mediation relating to one of the abovementioned disputes to be assisted by a lawyer and to bear the related costs, and allows a party not to participate in mediation only on valid grounds?

      (1)  Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 63).

      (2)  Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3).


title: Case C-235/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gela — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari by order of that Court of 19 June 2002 in criminal proceedings against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani

text:
24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 202/11
The restrictions in the directive in fact affect specifically small      income tax prepayment levied in the Member State in question,
and medium-sized undertakings. Restricting working time                  whereas the income tax which a debtor resident in another
would weaken the competitive position of those undertakings,             Member State is obliged to pay in his State of residence is not
since their situation differs from that of the owner of a large          taken into account as a deduction, so that the attachable part
undertaking. It follows from the division of work within a               is greater in the latter case in being determined on the basis of
large undertaking that the persons responsible for driving can           the gross and not the net amount of the pension?
use the whole time permitted by the directive for driving.
The management and development of the business are the
responsibility of different persons, whose working time the
provisions of the directive do not restrict in any way.
Fifth plea in law: failure to comply with the
duty to state reasons                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                         Gela — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari by
Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in             order of that Court of 19 June 2002 in criminal proceed-
the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council                  ings against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani
infringed Article 253 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-235/02)
According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the
obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC is determined
by the nature of the legislation, decision or other measure. The                                  (2002/C 202/14)
statement of reasons must disclose clearly and unambiguously
the reasoning of the Community institution which has adopted
the measure, so that the reasons for the measure are clear to
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
those concerned by it and the Community court can perform
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gela —
its function of review.
                                                                         Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Gela District
                                                                         Court, Chambers of the Judge in charge of Preliminary
Finland considers that those requirements are not satisfied in           Inquiries) of 19 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on
so far as the directive concerns self-employed drivers.                  26 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings
                                                                         against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani on the
(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.                                         following questions:
                                                                         1.    Does pet coke fall within the definition of ‘waste’ as
                                                                               provided in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC? (1)
                                                                         2.    Does use of pet coke as a fuel constitute ‘recovery’ within
                                                                               the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein Oikeus                 3.    Does pet coke, when used as a fuel for production
by order of that Court of 14.06.2002 in the case of                            purposes, come within the category of waste which a
Heikki Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen                           Member State may exclude from the application of the
                          Vakuutusyhtiö                                        Community, following the adoption of specific rules in
                                                                               accordance with Article 2 of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                         (Case C-224/02)
                                                                         4.    Does permitting the use of petroleum coke at the place
                         (2002/C 202/13)                                       of production even for combustion processes intended
                                                                               for the generation of electric or thermal energy for
                                                                               purposes unconnected with refining processes, subject to
                                                                               the condition that emissions must be within the limits
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         laid down in the relevant provisions, even where its
European Communities by order of the Korkein Oikeus                            sulphur content exceeds 3 % of mass, constitute a
(Supreme Court) of 14.6.2002, received at the Court Registry                   necessary and sufficient measure to ensure that such
on 17.6.2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Heikki                   waste is recovered without endangering human health
Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutus-                        and without the use of processes or methods likely harm
yhtiö on the following question:                                               the environment, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive
                                                                               75/442/EEC?
Does Article 18 of the EC Treaty or any other rule of
Community law preclude national legislation under which, in
an attachment carried out for the purpose of enforcing a                 (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
judgment concerning a money debt, that part of the pension
payable at regular intervals to the debtor which the attachment
may concern is determined by deducting from the pension the


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2000 in Case C-288/96: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Operating aid — Guidelines in the fisheries sector — Article 92(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) and (3)(c) EC) — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 335/20                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
Articles 3(c) and (g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3(c) and (g) EC), 3a and 5 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 4 EC and
10 EC), the second paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, the second paragraph of Article 14 EC) and                                         of 5 October 2000
Articles 102a and 103 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 98 EC and
99 EC) do not preclude the application of national legislation
requiring publishers to impose on booksellers fixed prices for the         in Case C-16/98: Commission of the European Communi-
resale of books.                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 93/38/EEC — Public works contracts in the
                                                                           water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors —
                                                                           Electrification and street lighting works in the département
                                                                                of the Vendée — Definition of work)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/37)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 5 October 2000
in Case C-288/96: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
           mission of the European Communities (1)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(State aid — Operating aid — Guidelines in the fisheries                   In Case C-16/98: Commission of the European Communities
sector — Article 92(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty (now,                   (Agents: H. van Lier and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French Republic
after amendment, Article 87(1) and (3)(c) EC) — Rights of                  (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and P. Lalliot) — application for a
              the defence — Statement of reasons)                          declaration that, in the course of the procurement procedure
                                                                           initiated by the Syndicat Départemental d’Electrification de la
                           (2000/C 335/36)                                 Vendée in December 1994 for the award of a contract for
                                                                           electrification and street lighting work, the French Republic
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2), 14(1), (10)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and (13), together with Articles 21, 24 and 25 of Council
                                                                           Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the pro-
                                                                           curement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199,
                    in the European Court Reports)                         p. 84) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
                                                                           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
                                                                           (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
In Case C-288/96: Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                      J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
B. Kloke with M. Schütte) v Commission of the European                     Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Communities (Agent: P.F. Nemitz with R.M. Bierwagen) —                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
application for the annulment of Commission Decision                       on 5 October 2000, in which it:
96/563/EC of 29 May 1996 on aid from the Land of Lower
Saxony to the company JAKO Jadekost GmbH & Co. KG (OJ
1996 L 246, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                   1.    Declares that in so far as the French entities responsible for the
of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                        tendering procedure for electrification contracts held in Vendée
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and                        in December 1994
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                 —     split the work,
on 5 October 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 —     did not publish in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                                Communities a call for competition for all the contracts
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                         comprised in that work above the threshold laid down in
                                                                                Article 14(10), second subparagraph, last sentence,
                                                                                of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.                                                            coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                                operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
                                                                                munications sectors but confined themselves to doing so
                                                                                for six of them only,


title: Case T-194/05: Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Teletech Holdings Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Teletech Holdings Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-194/05)
   (2005/C 171/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 2005 by Teletech Holdings Inc., established in Englewood, Colorado (USA), represented by A. M. Gould, Solicitor.
   Teletech International S.A. established in Paris (France), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 3 March 2005, in case R 497/2004-1;

               —

               Remit the matter to the Opposition Division for it to consider and rule on TeleTech's US opposition to Community trade mark 2 168 409 in the name of Teletech International SA based on its Community trade mark No. 134 908 TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES;

               —

               Order the Office to pay TeleTech's US's costs relating to its proceedings both in the Court of First Instance and before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               TELETECH INTERNATIONAL S.A.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark TELETECH INTERNATIONAL for services in classes 35, 38 and 42

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National mark ‘TELETECH’ and Community trade mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Registration refused

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Declares the appeal inadmissible

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant contends that the Court of First Instance's judgment of 16 September 2004 in case T-342/02, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion / OHMI declaring an appeal brought in similar circumstances inadmissible, was wrongly decided; in the alternative, it submits that this judgment could be distinguished; finally, it submits that its position in the USA has been seriously prejudiced by the decision of the Opposition Division and that, therefore, its appeal against the latter's decision should have been declared admissible.


title: Case F-125/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Sesma Merino v OHIM (Civil service — Officials — Assessment report — Objectives for 2011/2012 — Measure not having an adverse effect — Action inadmissible)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/20

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Sesma Merino v OHIM
   (Case F-125/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Assessment report - Objectives for 2011/2012 - Measure not having an adverse effect - Action inadmissible)
   2014/C 31/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alvaro Sesma Merino (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Faedo, R. Pethke and P. Saba, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of both the applicant’s staff report for 2011 and the decision setting the objectives to be attained, and a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Sesma Merino to bear his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 26 of 26.01.2013, p. 72.


title: Case C-434/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2008 — Arnold and Johann Harms, in their capacity as a partnership under German civil law v Freerk Heidinga

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2008 — Arnold and Johann Harms, in their capacity as a partnership under German civil law v Freerk Heidinga
   (Case C-434/08)
   (2009/C 44/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Arnold and Johann Harms, in their capacity as a partnership under German civil law

      Defendant: Freerk Heidinga
   Question referred
   Is Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (1) and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be interpreted as meaning that the following contractual arrangements are incompatible with that provision and hence invalid: contractual arrangements outwardly effecting a complete and definitive transfer of payment entitlements, but stipulating — according to an internal agreement between the parties — that the seller is to remain the beneficial owner of those payment entitlements, whereby the purchaser, in his capacity as the person formally entitled to them, is to activate the payment entitlements through cultivation of the corresponding land and to pass on to the seller the full amount of the single payments made to him, or contractual arrangements pursuant to which land premiums are transferred to the purchaser in such a way that he remains under an ongoing obligation to pay to the seller a part of the single payments (the farm-specific part), at any rate once those payments have been activated and disbursed?

      (1)  OJ L 270, p. 1.


title: Case C-131/08: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 2009 — Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Application for word mark SAFETY 1ST — Lack of distinctive character — Refusal of registration)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/17

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 2009 — Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-131/08) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Application for word mark SAFETY 1ST - Lack of distinctive character - Refusal of registration)
   2009/C 113/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (represented by: G. Simon, Rechtsanwältin)

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 in Case T-88/06 Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 January 2006 (Case R 616/2004-2) dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision which refused to register the word mark ‘SAFETY 1ST’ for goods in Classes 12, 20, 21 and 28 — Distinctive character of a trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case T-40/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — EREF v Commission (Action for annulment — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/52

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — EREF v Commission
   (Case T-40/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 24/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Kahn and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning the measure C 45/2006 implemented by France in the context of the construction by Areva NP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               It is not necessary to decide on the applications for leave to intervene brought by the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, Greenpeace France and Greenpeace Nordic.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-217/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2009 — Maurizio Polisseni v A.S.L. No 14 V.C.O.Omegna

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2009 — Maurizio Polisseni v A.S.L. No 14 V.C.O.Omegna
   (Case C-217/09)
   2009/C 205/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maurizio Polisseni

      Defendant: A.S.L. No 14 V.C.O.Omegna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 43 EC and, in any event, Community law on competition, preclude a national rule such as that laid down in Article 1 of Law No 475 of 2 April 1968 and Article 13 of Presidential Decree No 1275 of 21 August 1971, in so far as it makes authorisation to transfer a pharmacy from one set of premises to another, even though it remains within the authorised area, subject to the requirement that it must be located at a distance of at least 200 metres from other similar establishments, measured by the shortest route on foot from door to door; in particular, are the restrictions on freedom of establishment imposed in that rule at odds with the reasons of public interest which could justify such restrictions and are they not in any event inappropriate for the purpose of meeting those interests?

               2.

               Does the principle of proportionality, which must be observed by any legitimate restriction on freedom of establishment and competition, in any event preclude a restriction on a pharmacist’s right to engage in free enterprise such as that resulting from the rules on minimum distance referred to in the first question?

               3.

               Do Articles 152 EC and 153 EC, which impose a high level of protection on human health and consumer interests as a matter of priority, preclude a national rule such as that laid down in Article 1 of Law No 475 of 2 April 1968 and Article 13 of Presidential Decree No 1275 of 21 August 1971, in so far as it makes authorisation to transfer a pharmacy from one set of premises to another, even though it remains within the authorised area, subject to the requirement that it be located at a distance of at least 200 metres from other similar establishments, measured by the shortest route on foot from door to door, without any further consideration being given to the customers’ interests or to the requirement of efficient local distribution of services relating to the protection of health?


title: Case T-592/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/59

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-592/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/75)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.