C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-513/08 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/19

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case C-513/08 P)
   (2009/C 32/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               1. In any event:

                           (1.a)

                           Annul the order under appeal in its entirety;

                           (1.b)

                           Declare the original action to be fully admissible;

                  and in addition

               —

                  2/A as a primary remedy: (2/A.1) annul the contested decision; (2/A.2) annul, in so far as necessary, calculation No 58; (2/A.3) annul, to the extent necessary, the decision to reject the complaint in full; (2/A.4) order the defendant to pay to the appellant, on an interim basis, the sum of EUR 324.09 or such higher or lower amount as the Court may deem to be just and equitable; (2A/.5) order the defendant, in so far as necessary, to pay to the appellant, in accordance with the applicable rules, the sum which is due to him but remains unpaid in respect of the cost of his medical examination of 28 September 2005; (2/A.6) order the defendant to pay to the appellant default interest on the amounts referred to at 2/A.4 and 2/A.5, for the period from the date on which they became due until the date of actual payment, to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules: (2/A.7) order the defendant to pay to the appellant all the costs and expenses of the proceedings;
               or

               —

                  2/B. in the alternative, to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the statements of the appellant in his written pleadings, arising also from the material inaccuracy of the findings of the Court of First Instance (in particular, paragraphs 36, 38, 39 and 41 of the order under appeal).

               2.

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of a challengeable act, and, in addition, confusion, irrationality, illogicality, infringement of Article 231 of the EC Treaty and failure to have regard to the case-law relating to the effects of the annulment by the Community judicature of a decision issued by a Community institution, infringement of the principle of res judicata and infringement of the principle of the separation of powers (in particular, paragraphs 39 and 41 of the order under appeal).


title: Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-138/96)

text:
 No C 180/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 6 . 96
 Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Paris, of 23 February                   Communities on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 25 April               European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Scotch                Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
 Whisky Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
 Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
 Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
 Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai ) on the following                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
 question:
                                                                            1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
 Having regard to European rules, in particular Article 5 of                      adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 i 1 ),                      Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 ), the Federal Republic of
 may the generic term 'whisky' be included in the trade name                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 of spirit drinks consisting entirely of whisky diluted with                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 water, so that the alcoholic strength by volume is less than
 40° ?
                                                                           2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 C ) OJ No L 160, 12 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments .
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                           in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ), the time limit for transposition expired
 Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  on 1 January 1994 .
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                  Germany                                  (') OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-137/96 )                              ( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .
                               ( 96/C 180/52 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities on 24 April 1 996 by the Commission of the
 European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 March 1996 in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the               the case of Finanzamt Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.                                                            Langhorst
                                                                                Case C-141 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                            ( 96/C 180/54 )
 1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 91 /414/EEC ('), the Federal Republic of                 European Communities by an order of the Fifth Senate of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC          the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 14 March
       Treaty and under that Directive;                                    1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
                                                                           1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst on the following
                                                                          questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                  1 . Is it permissible under Article 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ); the time limit for transposition expired                 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
on 27 July 1993 .                                                                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                to turnover taxes (the Sixth Directive ) ( J ) for a credit
(M OJ No L 230 , 1991 , p . 1 .                                                  note within the meaning of paragraph 14 ( 5 ) of the
( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .                                      Umsatzsteuergesetz ( Law on turnover tax) 1980 to be
                                                                                regarded as an invoice or other document serving as
                                                                                invoice ( Article 21 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Directive )?
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  2 . If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative : Is it
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                             permissible under Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive
                                  Germany                                        for a person who accepts a credit note showing a higher
                                                                                amount of tax than that owed by reason of taxable
                           ( Case C- 1 3 8/96 )                                  transactions, and does not contradict in that respect the
                              ( 96/C 180/53 )                                    mention of tax in the credit note, to be regarded as a
                                                                                person who mentions value-added tax on an invoice or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            other document serving as invoice and is therefore liable
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              to pay that value added tax ?


title: Case C-549/08: Action brought on 10 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/9

         Action brought on 10 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-549/08)
   (2009/C 55/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/70/EC (1) of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of a ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 214, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ L 309, p. 15.


title: Case T-704/14: Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Marine Harvest/Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/61

         Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Marine Harvest/Commission
   (Case T-704/14)
   2014/C 409/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marine Harvest ASA (Bergen, Norway) (represented by: R. Subiotto, QC)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of July 23, 2014, in Case COMP/M.7184 — Marine Harvest/Morpol (Art. 14(2) proc.);

               —

               alternatively, annul the fines imposed on Marine Harvest pursuant to that Decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on Marine Harvest pursuant to that Decision;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay Marine Harvest legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, claiming that the Decision errs in law and fact because it finds that Marine Harvest should have notified its acquisition of a 48,5 % stake in Morpol in December 2012 (the ‘December 2012 Acquisition’) under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and refrained from acquiring title to a 48,5 % shareholding in Morpol before receiving clearance of that element of the overall transaction, thereby rejecting the unitary nature of, and the applicability of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 to, the December 2012 Acquisition and the subsequent public offer mandated by the December 2012 Acquisition under Norwegian public takeover rules, and which Marine Harvest always intended to launch expeditiously so as to acquire full control of Morpol.

               2.

               Second plea in law, claiming that the Decision errs in law and fact because it finds that Marine Harvest was negligent in not notifying the December 2012 Acquisition and refraining from acquiring title to the 48,5 % shareholding in Morpol before receiving clearance of that element of the overall transaction, thereby ignoring that Marine Harvest could not reasonably have foreseen, whether objectively or subjectively, that the December 2012 Acquisition and the subsequent public offer would not fall within the scope of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

               3.

               Third plea in law, claiming that the Decision violates the principle that no-one should be punished twice for the same offence by fining Marine Harvest for (i) failing to notify the December 2012 Acquisition before (ii) implementing it by acquiring title to the 48,5 % shareholding in Morpol.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, claiming, in the alternative, that the Decision’s fining of Marine Harvest violates the principles of legal certainty, ‘nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege’, and equal treatment, because of the novelty of the factual and legal issues in this case, and the Commission’s recent handling of a comparable case, in which it did not (i) open an investigation, (ii) reach a definitive and binding conclusion on the scope of Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and (iii) impose a fine.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, claiming, in the further alternative, that the Decision contains manifest errors of law and fact and lacks reasoning in setting the fine levels in this case, because it (i) does not explain how the fines are calculated, (ii) emphasizes the gravity of the alleged violations by reference to factors that do not support it, (iii) includes in the duration of the infringement periods that it excluded in other cases on the misguided grounds that Marine Harvest was insufficiently forthcoming in the pre-notification period, (iv) sets the fines at a level that is disproportionate relative to the duration and gravity of the alleged violation, and objectives to be achieved, and (v) overlooks mitigating circumstances, including the transparent and cooperative merger control process, lack of relevant precedents, and excusable error in committing the alleged violation.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 1999 in Case C-207/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfill its obligation - Council Directive 76/464/EEC - Water pollution - Failure to transpose)

text:
C 100/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
Wales) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the                   the marketing authorisation in question without
proceedings pending before that court between Upjohn                      awaiting the opinion of the Committee for Proprietary
Ltd and The Licensing Authority established by the                        Medicinal Products.
Medicines Act 1968 and Others Ð on the interpretation
of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
the approximation of provisions laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary
medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965Ð
1966, p. 20) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward
and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; D.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 January 1999
                                                                     in    Case    C-207/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfill its obligation Ð
1. Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on                 Council Directive 76/464/EEC Ð Water pollution Ð
     the approximation of provisions laid down by law,                                     Failure to transpose)
     regulation or administrative action relating to
     proprietary medicinal products and, more generally,                                     (1999/C 100/03)
     Community law do not require the Member States to
     establish a procedure for judicial review of national
     decisions     revoking    authorisations     to   market                         (Language of the case: French)
     proprietary medicinal products, empowering the
     competent national courts and tribunals to substitute
     their assessment of the facts and, in particular, of the          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     scientific evidence relied on in support of the                            published in the European Court Reports)
     revocation decision for the assessment made by the
     national authorities competent to revoke such
     authorisations.                                                 In Case C-207/97, Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: initially Richard B. Wainwright and
                                                                     Jean-Francis Pasquier, and subsequently Richard B.
                                                                     Wainwright and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. Kingdom of
                                                                     Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a
                                                                     declaration that, by not adopting pollution reduction
2. Community law does not require a National Court or                programmes including quality objectives for water Ð at
     Tribunal which is seised of an application for                  least in respect of 99 substances listed in an annex to the
     annulment of a decision revoking a marketing                    application Ð or by not communicating to the
     authorisation for a particular proprietary medicinal            Commission summaries of such programmes and the
     product to take into account, when determining that             results of their implementation, in infringement of Article 7
     application, any relevant scientific material coming to         of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
     light after the adoption of that decision.                      pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
                                                                     discharged into the aquatic environment of the
                                                                     Community (OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23), the Kingdom of
                                                                     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, H.
                                                                     Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou
3. Directive 65/65/EC and Second Council Directive 75/               (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate-General: J. Mischo; L.
     319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of                  Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     provisions laid down by law, regulation or                      judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:
     administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
     products, as amended by Directive 83/570/EEC are to
     be construed as meaning that, where the matter has              1. Declares that, by not adopting pollution reduction
     been referred by various Member States to the                        programmes including quality objectives for water in
     Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products                         respect of the 99 substances listed in the annex to the
     following the adoption by the competent national                     application, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     authority of a decision revoking a marketing                         fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Council
     authorisation and the time-limit for the issue by that               Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution
     Committee of its opinion has expired, those directives               caused by certain dangerous substances discharged
     do not preclude that authority from deciding to revoke               into the aquatic environment of the Community.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 100/3
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
                                                                         workers within the Community may be relied on by a
                                                                         worker against the Member State of which he is a
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                                 national where he has resided and been employed in
                                                                         another Member State.
                                                                     2. Article 48 of the Treaty precludes a Member State
                                                                         from levying, on a worker who has transferred his
                                                                         residence in the course of a year from one Member
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     State to another in order to take up employment there,
                                                                         greater social security contributions than those which
                     of 26 January 1999                                  would be payable, in similar circumstances, by a
                                                                         worker who has continued to reside throughout the
in Case C-18/95 (request for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                         year in the Member State in question, where the first
Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): F. C. Terhoeve v.
                                                                         worker is not also entitled to additional social
Inspecteur      van    de    Belastingdienst     Particulieren/
                                                                         benefits.
                Ondernemingen Buitenland (1)
(Freedom of movement for workers Ð Combined
assessment covering income tax and social security
contributions Ð Non-applicability to workers who                     3. A heavier contributions burden on a worker who
transfer their residence from one Member State to another                transfers his residence from one Member State to
of a social contributions ceiling applicable to workers who              another in order to take up employment there, which
have not exercised their right to freedom of movement Ð                  is in principle incompatible with Article 48 of the
Possible offsetting by income tax advantages Ð Possible                  Treaty, may not be justified either by the fact that it
   incompatibility with Community law Ð Consequences)                    stems from legislation whose objective is to simplify
                                                                         and coordinate the levying of income tax and social
                       (1999/C 100/04)                                   security contributions, or by difficulties of a technical
                                                                         nature preventing other methods of collection, or else
                                                                         by the fact that, in certain circumstances, other
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                            advantages relating to income tax may offset, or
                                                                         indeed outweigh, the disadvantage as to social
                                                                         contributions.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     4. When assessing whether the burden of social security
                                                                         contributions borne by a worker who has transferred
                                                                         his residence from one Member State to another in
In Case C-18/95, reference to the Court under Article 177                order to take up employment there is heavier than that
of the EC Treaty by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch                  borne by a worker who has continued to reside in the
(Regional      Court     of    Appeal,       's-Hertogenbosch)           same Member State, all income relevant under
Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 national law for determining the amount of
pending before that court between: F. C. Terhoeve and                    contributions, including, as the case may be, income
Inspecteur      van    de    Belastingdienst      Particulieren/         arising from real property, must be taken into account.
Ondernemingen Buitenland (Tax Inspector for Foreign
Individuals and Undertakings) Ð on the interpretation of
Articles 7 and 48 of the EEC Treaty and Article 7(2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of                        5. If the contested national legislation is incompatible
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                       with Article 48 of the Treaty, a worker who transfers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968                   his residence from one Member State to another in
(II), p. 475) Ð the Court, composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,                order to take up employment there is entitled to have
President of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers, acting for the               his social security contributions set at the same level as
President, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, President of Chambers,                 that of the contributions which would be payable by a
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                   worker who has continued to reside in the same
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R.                      Member State.
Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate-General:
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 January 1999, in which it has ruled:                              (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
1. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Article 7 of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of


title: Case T-374/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 November 2007 — Germany v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — German national allocation plan for emission allowances — Measures for the ex-post adjustment of the amount of allowances allocated to installations — Commission rejection decision — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 November 2007 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-374/04) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - German national allocation plan for emission allowances - Measures for the ex-post adjustment of the amount of allowances allocated to installations - Commission rejection decision - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)
   (2007/C 315/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by C.D. Quassowski, A. Tiemann and C. Schulze-Bahr, and subsequently by C. Schulze-Bahr and M. Lumma, Agents, and by D. Sellner and U. Karpenstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2515/2 final of 7 July 2004 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), in so far as in the decision the Commission rejects certain measures for the ex-post adjustment of allowances as incompatible with criteria 5 and 10 of Annex III to the directive.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2004) 2515/2 final of 7 July 2004 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(a) to (c) of that decision in so far as it directs the Federal Republic of Germany, first, to omit the measures for ex-post adjustment which are referred to therein and, second, to notify the Commission of their omission;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-166/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2016 — Tui Deutschland GmbH v Stefan Düren

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2016 — Tui Deutschland GmbH v Stefan Düren
   (Case C-166/16)
   (2016/C 232/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Celle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tui Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Stefan Düren
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 21 April 2016.


title: Case F-95/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ and Others v European Railway Agency (ERA)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/28

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ and Others v European Railway Agency (ERA)
   (Case F-95/13)
   2013/C 352/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to not reclassify the applicants’ employment contracts as members of the temporary staff for a fixed-term as an employment contracts for an indefinite duration.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the applicants’ application of 20 December 2012 seeking to reclassify their employment contracts as members of the temporary staff for a fixed-term for the purposes of Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) as employment contracts for an indefinite duration under Article 8 of the CEOS from the date of their actual entry into force;

               —

               order the European Railway Agency to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 March 1996 in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof and from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court): Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Federal Republic of Germany and the Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others (Principle of Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to the State - Breaches attributable to the national legislature - Conditions for State liability - Extent of reparation)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/ 1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   2 . Where a breach of Community law by a Member State is
                        of 5 March 1996                                     attributable to the national legislature acting in a field in
                                                                            which it has a wide discretion to make legislative
in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 ( references for a                      choices, individuals suffering loss or injury thereby are
preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof and from the                  entitled to reparation where the rules of Community law
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional                   breached is intended to confer rights upon them, the
Court ): Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Federal Republic of                     breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal
Germany and the Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport,                  link between the breach and the damage sustained by the
             ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others ( 1 )                       individuals. Subject to that reservation, the State must
(Principle of Member State liability for damage caused to                   make good the consequences of the loss or damage
individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to                    caused by the breach of Community law attributable to
the State — Breaches attributable to the national legislature               it, in accordance with its national law on liability.
  — Conditions for State liability — Extent of reparation)                  However, the conditions laid down by the applicable
                          ( 96/C 145/01 )                                   national laws must not be less favourable than those
                                                                            relating to similar domestic claims or framed in such a
                                                                            way as in practice to make it impossible or excessively
        (Languages of the cases: German and English)                        difficult to obtain reparation.
In Joined Cases C-46/93 and C 48/93 : reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Bundesgerichtshof            3 . Pursuant to the national legislation which it applies,
( Case C-46/93 ) and by the High Court of Justice, Queen's                  reparation of loss or damage cannot be made
Bench Division, Divisional Court ( Case C-48/93 ) for a                     conditional upon fault (intentional or negligent) on the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before those                  part of the organ of the State responsible for the breach,
courts between Brasserie du Pêcheur SA and Federal                          going beyond that of a sufficiently serious breach of
Republic of Germany and The Queen v. Secretary of State                     Community law.
for Transport ex parte: Factortame Ltd and Others — on the
interpretation of the principle of the liability of the State for      4 . Reparation by Member States of loss or damage which
damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community                       they have caused to individuals as a result of breaches
law attributable to the State — the Court composed of: G. C.                of Community law must be commensurate with the
Rodriguez Iglesias ( Rapporteur), President, C. N. Kakouris,                loss or damage sustained. In the absence of relevant
D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ),                   Community provisions, it is for the domestic legal
G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de                        system of each Member State to set the criteria for
Almeida, C. Gulmann and J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro,                   determining the extent of reparation. However, those
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar and                     criteria must not be less favourable than those applying
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on                    to similar claims or actions based on domestic law and
5 March 1996 , in which it rules :                                          must not be such as in practice to make it impossible or
                                                                            excessively difficult to obtain reparation. National
I. The principle that Member States are obliged to make                     legislation which generally limits the damage for which
     good damage caused to individuals by breaches of                       reparation may be granted to damage done to certain,
     Community law attributable to the State is applicable                  specifically protected individual interests not including
     where the national legislature was responsible for the                 loss of profit by individuals is not compatible with
     breach in question.                                                    Community law. Moreover, it must be possible to award
 ---pagebreak--- No C 145/2              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18 . 5 . 96
    specific damages, such as the exemplary damages                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato
    provided for by English law, pursuant to claims or                   by order of that court of 6 December 1995 in the cases of 1 .
    actions founded on Community law, if such damages                    Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2 . Giovanni Pagano, 3 . Rosa
    may be awarded pursuant to similar claims or actions                 Bruna Vitale, 4 . Francesca Nuccio, 5 . Giacomo Cangialosi,
    founded on domestic law.                                             6. Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8 . Emanuela
                                                                         Giovenco, 9. Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10. Daniela Guerrera, 11 .
                                                                         Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero della Sanità and Locai Health
5 . The obligation for Member States to make good loss                                       Authority No 58 , Palermo
    or damage caused to individuals by breaches of
                                                                                ( Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 )
     Community law attributable to the State cannot be
    limited to damage sustained after the delivery of a                                             ( 96/C 145/03 )
    judgment of the Court finding the infringement in
    question.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No C 92 , 2 . 4 . 1993 .                                          European Communities by orders of the Consiglio di Stato
    OJ No C 94, 3 . 4 . 1993 .                                           of 6 December 1995 , which were received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         cases of 1 . Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2 . Giovanni Pagano,
                                                                         3 . Rosa Bruna Vitale, 4 . Francesca Nuccio, 5 . Giacomo
                                                                         Cangialosi , 6 . Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8 .
                                                                         Emanuela Giovenco, 9 . Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10 . Daniela
                                                                         Guerrera , 11 . Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero délia Sanità
                                                                         ( Ministry of Health ) and Local Health Authority No 58 ,
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  Palermo, on the following questions :
                     of 26 February 1996
in Case C- 1 8 1/95 : Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham
                         Biologicals SA ( 1 )                            ( a ) Must the term 'court or tribunal' in Article 177 of the
                                                                               Treaty be interpreted extensively so as to include not
(Articles 20 and 37 of the Statute of the Court ofJustice of                   only judicial proceedings specifically defined as such in
the European Communities — Participation in proceedings                        national    law    but    also  contentious-administrative
            under Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty)                               proceedings characterized not only by impartiality, the
                          ( 96/ C 145/02 )                                     guarantee of full disclosure between parties, and so
                                                                               forth, but also by the fact that the decision cannot be
                                                                               revoked or amended by any other administrative of
                (Language of the case: French)                                 judicial authority ?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                        ( b ) Does the expression 'all those doctors who on
                                                                               31 December 1994 possess such a right' in Article 7 ( 2 )
                                                                               of Directive 86/457/EEC ( 1 ) refer to those who had
In Case C-181 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                   theoretically obtained entitlement to enter into a
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                                 service relationship ( as employees, under contractual
( Commercial Court), Nivelles, Belgium, for a preliminary                      arrangements, as members of temporary staff, etc .)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                    with the national health service, or only those who had
Biogen Inc . and Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA — on                        already in fact entered into such a relationship ?
the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92
of 1 8 June 1 992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
protection certificate for medicinal products ( OJ 1992                   'c ) If the answer to the second question upholds the second
L 182 , p . 1 ) — the President of the Court, after hearing                    possibility, is the Directive to be interpreted as meaning
the Advocate-General, N. Fennelly, made an order on                            that the national authority is in any event entitled to
26 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                           extend the term 'acquired rights' so as to include all
follows :                                                                      those who, on the date indicated, had acquired an
                                                                               ordinary certificate of entitlement to practise medicine,
                                                                               or as meaning that an 'acquired right' must be taken to
1 . The application to intervene by Research Corporation                       refer to a higher level of qualification than an ordinary
     Technologies Inc. is dismissed as inadmissible.                           certificate of entitlement to practise medicine ?
2.   There is no need to rule on costs.
                                                                         (') OJ No L 267, 19 . 9 . 1986 , p . 26 .
(!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case T-385/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT — Earlier national word mark LOFT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)
   (Case T-385/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT - Earlier national word mark LOFT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 103/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Annco, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Freche et fils associés (Paris, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Freche et fils associés and Annco, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1);

               2.

               Declares that the remainder of the action is inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Européenne Automobile Sàrl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-211/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 54/33
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                       — pursuant to the provisions of Article 215 of the Treaty,
     proceedings.                                                         find that the Community has incurred non-contractual
                                                                          liability and that this has resulted in damage to
                                                                          Europeenne Automobile for which reparation must be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       made,
The applicant, an official in grade A 7, step 3 , claims that
there has been an error of law in the application of                 — consequently, award Européenne Automobile the sum
Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations, particularly in so             of ECU 246 000 as compensation ,
far as the statement of reasons of the appointing authority
makes it impossible for that provision to have any
independent application vis-a-vis the first paragraph of             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Article 27 and Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, which
are, however, designed to cover different situations
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
regarding the classification in grade of recently recruited
officials .   Furthermore,     the    Commission 's    conduct
constitutes a breach of the principle of equal treatment of          The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
officials since the Commission places in the same grade all          intermediary in the distribution of motor vehicles by way
external candidates, irrespective of the fact that they have         of parallel imports made by it as agent for the final
very different qualifications as regards relevant                    consumer, in accordance with the provisions of
professional experience, and officials recruited as a result         Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , states that it
of integral ' establishment' competitions retain the grade           lodged a complaint with the Commission on 27 July 1994
which they had as temporary staff prior to establishment.            criticizing the steps taken by the Peugeot Group ( PSA ) in
In contrast to candidates recruited directly as officials,           relation to Peugeot concessionaries of its subsidiaries
temporary staff are graded in accordance with rules that             outside France to dissuade them from selling vehicles to
allow full account to be taken of experience acquired                French intermediaries, with a view to partitioning the
before they entered the Commission's service .                       market. By letter of 9 October 1996 , the Commission
                                                                     informed the applicant of its decision to reject the
Finally, the applicant considers that the appointing                 complaint. That decision forms the subject-matter of the
authority manifestly erred in its assessment of the facts            present case (').
when it formed the view that her professional and
academic qualifications were unexceptional, whether in
general or with reference to the requirements of the post            The applicant takes the view that it has adduced sufficient
in question .                                                        evidence to establish the existence of the agreement of
                                                                     which it complains and that the contested decision is
                                                                     vitiated by a manifest error as to the probative value of
                                                                     that evidence . It also considers that the Commission had
                                                                     no excuse for not investigating the matter since it was well
                                                                     aware that failure by it to state its position would allow
                                                                     the untrammelled development of as serious an illegal
Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Européenne                     course of conduct as a partitioning of the market, directly
Automobile Sari against the Commission of the European               detrimental to the applicant, but also jeopardizing the
                          Communities                                development of the wider market and adversely affecting
                       ( Case T-211 /96 )                            the interests of consumers . Finally, the applicant contests
                                                                     the argument that there was insufficient Community
                          ( 97/C 5.4/54 )                            interest, on which the Commission relies in its reasons for
                                                                     the contested decision .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     With regard to its action for damages, the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European                     submits that, by refusing to examine the documents which
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    indicated anti-competitive practices on the part of PSA,
Instance of the European Communities on 17 December                  the Commission erred and caused the Community to incur
1996 by Europeenne Automobile Sari , having its                      non-contractual liability. It also argues that this refusal to
registered office in Carcassonne ( France ), represented by          intervene and to adopt appropriate measures has had, and
Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address              continues to have , particularly deleterious effects on its
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot                 supplies and development. From this it concludes that it is
Schiltz, 4 rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                                  entitled to damages for the harm which it has suffered .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         (') An action for failure to act and for damages which was
                                                                         brought by the applicant in the context of the same complaint
                                                                         is pending before the Court of First Instance ( Case T-9/96 , OJ
— pursuant to the provisions of Article 173 of the Treaty,               No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 ).
     annul the decision which the Commission notified to
     Europeenne Automobile on 9 October 1996 not to
     investigate the complaint lodged on 27 July 1994,


title: Case T-402/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/62

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-402/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/109)

      Language of the case: Italy

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-579/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4(6) — Member State’s undertaking to enforce the sentence in accordance with its domestic law — Implementation — Obligation of conforming interpretation)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski
   (Case C-579/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4(6) - Member State’s undertaking to enforce the sentence in accordance with its domestic law - Implementation - Obligation of conforming interpretation))
   (2017/C 283/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Daniel Adam Popławski

      intervener: Openbaar Ministerie

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes legislation of a Member State implementing that provision which, in a situation where the surrender of a foreign national in possession of a residence permit of indefinite duration in the territory of that Member State is sought by another Member State in order to execute a custodial sentence imposed on that national by a decision which has become final, first, does not authorise such a surrender, and secondly, merely lays down the obligation for the judicial authorities of the first Member State to inform the judicial authorities of the second Member State that they are willing to take over the enforcement of the judgment, where, on the date of the refusal to surrender, the execution has not in fact been taken over and where, furthermore, in the event that taking over that execution subsequently proves to be impossible, such a refusal may not be challenged.

               2.

               The provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584 do not have direct effect. However, the competent national court, by taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, is obliged to interpret the provisions of national law at issue in the main proceeding, so far as is possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of that framework decision, which in the present case means that, in the event of a refusal to execute a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the surrender of a person who has been finally judged in the issuing Member State and given a custodial sentence, the judicial authorities of the executing Member State are themselves required to ensure that the sentence pronounced against that person is actually executed.

               3.

               Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted to the effect that it does not authorise a Member State to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the surrender of a person who has been finally judged and given a custodial sentence, on the sole ground that that Member State intends to prosecute that person in relation to the same acts as those for which that judgment was pronounced.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-366/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE — Earlier national figurative marks Prestige — Partial refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
   (Case T-366/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE - Earlier national figurative marks Prestige - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 301/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg and B. Klingberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Prestige Cosmetics SpA (Anzola Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Mugnoz, M. Andreolini and A. Parini, lawyers)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Prestige Cosmetics Srl and The Procter & Gamble Company

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Court;

               3.

               Orders Prestige Cosmetics SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-261/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/86)
   By order of 18 February 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-261/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.


title: Case T-132/11: Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Kessé v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/21

         Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Kessé v Council
   (Case T-132/11)
   2011/C 130/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Feh Lambert Kessé (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Feh Lambert KESSE, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Feh Lambert KESSE be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-130/11 Gossio v Council.


title: Case T-73/09: Action brought on 18 February 2009 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/25

         Action brought on 18 February 2009 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v Commission
   (Case T-73/09)
   2009/C 102/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie de Saint-Gobain (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission C(2008) 6815 final relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass), together with the grounds on which the operative part of the decision was reached, in so far as the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain was made an addressee of that decision, and draw from that all the necessary consequences as regards the amount of the fine;

               —

               in the alternative, whether or not the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain may be an addressee of the decision, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the companies belonging to the Saint-Gobain group;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 in Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass by which the Commission found that certain undertakings had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing contracts for the supply of car glass and by coordinating their pricing policies and supply strategies on the European market for car glass.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

               —

               infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principle that penalties are personal inasmuch as the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain was made an addressee of the contested decision in its capacity as the parent company of the company Saint-Gobain Glass France SA without having personally and directly participated in the infringement;

               —

               failure to state reasons, infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the principle that penalties are personal as the Commission did not establish that the whole of the consolidated turnover of the Saint-Gobain group could be used as a basis for the penalty;

               —

               infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of non-retroactivity in so far as the Commission applied new guidelines dating from 2006 relating to the method of setting fines (2) retroactively to events which took place prior to their entry into force and were fully over before that date;

               —

               infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the principle of proportionality as no previous infringements may legitimately be taken into account.

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

      (2)  Commission Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case C-228/15: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Snezhana Velikova (Preliminary ruling — Right of Union citizens to move and reside within the territory of the European Union — Lack of relevance of the request for a preliminary ruling to settle the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/8

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Snezhana Velikova
      (Case C-228/15) (1)

      ((Preliminary ruling - Right of Union citizens to move and reside within the territory of the European Union - Lack of relevance of the request for a preliminary ruling to settle the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/16)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Catania

         Criminal proceedings against

      Snezhana Velikova

         Re:

      The application for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale de Catania (Catania District Court), made by decision of 7 January 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case C-458/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Canon Deutschland GmbH

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Canon Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-458/11)
   2011/C 362/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

      Defendants: Canon Deutschland GmbH

      Questions referred

   The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

               1.

               In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?

               2.

               Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?

               4.

               Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?

               5.

               Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case C-157/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 March 2007 — Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 March 2007 — Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH
   (Case C-157/07)
   (2007/C 129/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin

      Respondent: Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) prohibit a legal provision of a Member State according to which, when calculating total income, a taxpayer resident and subject to unlimited taxation in one Member State is able under certain conditions to deduct losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in another Member State which are exempt from income tax pursuant to a double taxation convention,

                           —

                           but according to which the sum deducted must, in the tax assessment period concerned, be added back in the calculation of total income, to the extent to which, in a subsequent tax assessment period, a positive amount of income from commercial activities which is exempt from tax pursuant to the double taxation convention is generated by permanent establishments in that other Member State,

                           —

                           subject in the latter case to an exception where the taxpayer can prove that, according to the provisions of the other Member State applicable to him, it is ‘in general ’not possible to claim deduction of losses in a year other than that in which those losses were incurred, which is not the case where, although a deduction of losses is in general possible according to the law of that State, it is not available to the taxpayer in the specific situation in which he finds himself?

               2.

               If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative: is the position in the State of residence affected if the limitations on deduction of losses applicable in the other Member State (being the source State) themselves contravene Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area on the ground that they discriminate against a taxpayer with income from his permanent establishment who is subject only to limited taxation there compared with a taxpayer who is subject to unlimited taxation there?

               3.

               Further assuming that the answer to (1) is in the affirmative: must the State of residence refrain from retroactive recovery of tax on losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, to the extent to which those losses cannot otherwise be deducted in any Member State on the ground that the permanent establishment in that other Member State has been disposed of?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1.


title: Case T-669/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014  — Commission v Thomé (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Refusal to recruit — Existence of a degree that complies with the condition laid down in the notice of competition on account of a homologation — Financial and non-material damage)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014 — Commission v Thomé
   (Case T-669/13) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Refusal to recruit - Existence of a degree that complies with the condition laid down in the notice of competition on account of a homologation - Financial and non-material damage))
   (2014/C 448/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Florence Thomé (Brussles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 October 2013 in Case F-97/12 Thomé v Commission seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case C-231/06 to C-233/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles, Belgium) — National Pensions Office v Emilienne Jonkman (C-231/06), Hélène Vercheval (C-232/06) and Noëlle Permesaen (C-233/06) v National Pensions Office (Equal treatment for men and women — Statutory pension scheme — Directive 79/7/EEC — Air hostesses — Grant of a pension equal to that of stewards — Payment of adjustment contributions in a single payment — Interest payments — Principle of effectiveness — Obligations on a Member State as a result of a preliminary ruling)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles, Belgium) — National Pensions Office v Emilienne Jonkman (C-231/06), Hélène Vercheval (C-232/06) and Noëlle Permesaen (C-233/06) v National Pensions Office
   (Case C-231/06 to C-233/06) (1)

   (Equal treatment for men and women - Statutory pension scheme - Directive 79/7/EEC - Air hostesses - Grant of a pension equal to that of stewards - Payment of adjustment contributions in a single payment - Interest payments - Principle of effectiveness - Obligations on a Member State as a result of a preliminary ruling)
   (2007/C 183/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: National Pensions Office, Noëlle Permesaen (C-233/06)

      Respondents: Emilienne Jonkman (C-231/06), Hélène Vercheval (C-232/06), National Pensions Office
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) — Interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — Possibility for a woman who was excluded from a more favourable pension scheme to be entitled to membership thereof retroactively, on making payment of the contributions relating to the membership period in question, in the form of a lump sum payment, and of late payment interest
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               When a Member State adopts rules intended to allow persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible throughout their retirement for the pension scheme applicable to persons of the other sex, Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security:

                           —

                           does not preclude that Member State from making such membership dependent upon the payment of adjustment contributions consisting of the difference between the contributions paid by the persons originally discriminated against in the period during which the discrimination took place and the higher contributions paid by the other category of persons during the same period, together with interest to compensate for inflation,

                           —

                           does preclude, by contrast, that Member State from requiring that payment of adjustment contributions to be made together with interest other than that to compensate for inflation,

                           —

                           also precludes a requirement that that payment be made as a single sum, where that condition makes the adjustment concerned impossible or excessively difficult in practice. That is the case in particular where the sum to be paid exceeds the annual pension of the interested party.

               2.

               Following a judgment given by the Court on an order for reference from which it is apparent that the national legislation is incompatible with Community law, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to take the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that Community law is complied with, by ensuring in particular that national law is changed so as to comply with Community law as soon as possible and that the rights which individuals derive from Community law are given full effect.

               3.

               Where discrimination infringing Community law has been found, for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged group the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-550/17: Action brought on 12 August 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/23

         Action brought on 12 August 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament
   (Case T-550/17)
   (2017/C 357/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 14 June 2017 on the request for the waiver of immunity of Mylène Troszczynski 2017/2019(IMM);

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay to Mylène Troszczynski the amount of EUR 35 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage which she has suffered;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay to Mylène Troszczynski the amount of EUR 5 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all costs in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266) (‘the protocol’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 9 of the protocol.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality of treatment and of the principle of good administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the rights of the defence have been infringed and that the contested decision is unlawful.


title: Case T-339/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (sevenoak)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/60

         Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (sevenoak)
   (Case T-339/17)
   (2017/C 239/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SEVENOAK’ — Application for registration No 13 521 125

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 1326/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reject the contested decision;

               —

               grant the EUTM application No 13 521 125 ‘SEVENOAK’ for all the goods included in the application;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Joined Cases C-204/12 to C-208/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (References for a preliminary ruling — Regional support scheme providing for the issuance of tradable green certificates for facilities situated in the region concerned producing electricity from renewable energy sources — Obligation for electricity suppliers to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain quota of certificates — Refusal to take account of guarantees of origin originating from other Member States of the European Union and from States which are parties to the EEA Agreement — Administrative fine in the event of failure to surrender certificates — Directive 2001/77/EC — Article 5 — Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement — Directive 2003/54/EC — Article 3)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt
   (Joined Cases C-204/12 to C-208/12) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Regional support scheme providing for the issuance of tradable green certificates for facilities situated in the region concerned producing electricity from renewable energy sources - Obligation for electricity suppliers to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain quota of certificates - Refusal to take account of guarantees of origin originating from other Member States of the European Union and from States which are parties to the EEA Agreement - Administrative fine in the event of failure to surrender certificates - Directive 2001/77/EC - Article 5 - Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement - Directive 2003/54/EC - Article 3))
   2014/C 409/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Essent Belgium NV

      Defendant: Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt

      Intervening parties: Vlaams Gewest, Vlaamse Gemeenschap (C-204/12, C-206/12 and C-208/12)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 5 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market must be interpreted as not precluding a national support scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the issuance, by the competent regional regulatory authority, of tradable certificates in respect of green electricity produced on the territory of the region concerned and which places electricity suppliers under an obligation, subject to an administrative fine, to surrender annually to that authority a certain number of those certificates corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of the electricity that they have supplied in that region, without those suppliers being allowed to fulfil that obligation by using guarantees of origin originating from other Member States of the European Union or non-member States which are parties to the EEA Agreement.

               2)

               Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as not precluding a national support scheme as described in paragraph 1 of the present operative part, provided that:

                           —

                           mechanisms are established which ensure the creation of a genuine market for certificates in which supply can match demand, reaching some kind of balance, so that it is actually possible for the relevant suppliers to obtain certificates under fair terms;

                           —

                           the method of calculation and amount of the administrative fine to be paid by suppliers who have not fulfilled that obligation are fixed in such a way as not to exceed what is necessary to encourage producers actually to increase their production of green electricity and suppliers subject to that obligation actually to purchase the required certificates, by avoiding in particular penalising those suppliers in an excessive manner.

               3)

               The rules on non-discrimination contained in Article 18 TFEU, Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 and Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC respectively, must be interpreted as not precluding a national support scheme as described in paragraph 1 of the present operative part.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.