title: Case T-282/12: Action brought on 27 June 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Sohawon (FREE YOUR STYLE.)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/25

         Action brought on 27 June 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Sohawon (FREE YOUR STYLE.)
   (Case T-282/12)
   2012/C 258/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadia Mariam Sohawon (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 17 April 2012 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 1825/2010-4, and find that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the action brought by the opposing party before OHIM should have been upheld for the following services in Class 35: retail services, wholesale services, mailing services and online retail services related to clothing, footwear and headgear, and the decision of the Opposition Division to fully grant Community trade mark No 7 396 468‘FREE YOUR STYLE’ (mixed) should have been annulled;

               —

               order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nadia Mariam Sohawon

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘FREE YOUR STYLE.’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 396 468

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and Spanish word mark ‘FREE STYLE’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-455/15: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Vitra Collections v EUIPO — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/33

         Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Vitra Collections v EUIPO — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)
   (Case T-455/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 014/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vitra Collections AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Consorzio Origini per l’Internazionalizzazione (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2015 (Case R 664/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Consorzio Origini and Vitra Collections AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Vitra Collections AG and Consorzio Origini per l’Internazionalizzazione shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-430/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Terex Equipment Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Terex Equipment Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-430/08)
   (2008/C 327/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (pursuant to a request from the Edinburgh Tribunal Centre)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Terex Equipment Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Code (1), and in particular Article 78, permit revision of the declaration to correct the CPC and if so, are HMRC required to amend the declaration and to regularise the situation?

               2.

               Were the goods in this case unlawfully removed from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203(1) of the Code by reason of the operation of Article 865 IR (2)?

               3.

               If so, was a customs debt on importation thereby incurred under Article 203 of the Code?

               4.

               Even if there was no customs debt under Article 203 of the Code, has a customs debt arisen by virtue of Article 204 having regard to

                           (i)

                           the findings on ‘obvious negligence’ and

                           (ii)

                           the question whether HMRC failed to comply with Article 221(3) 45 of the Code by failing to communicate the Article 204 customs debt within the time limit

               5.

               Given that:

                           (i)

                           there can be no regularisation under Article 78 of the Code and

                           (ii)

                           there was a customs debt and

                           (iii)

                           there was a special situation as contemplated by Article 899 1R,

                     was it open to the Tribunal to conclude that there was no obvious negligence present, so that the customs debt should be remitted under Article 239 of the Code?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  2 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).


title: Case C-304/02: Action brought on 27 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
12.10.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/9
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by the Commission                             —     failed to record infringements which the national
of the European Communities against the French Republic                              authorities could have found to exist and to charge
                                                                                offenders.
                          (Case C-304/02)                                      The apparent absence of control activities was recorded
                                                                               during frequent inspections over several years and not-
                                                                               withstanding the improvements in methods of control
                          (2002/C 247/14)                                      and the number of inspections which the French auth-
                                                                               orities pointed out in their correspondence with the
                                                                               Commission services. In addition, the Commission never
                                                                               denied that there had been findings of infringements.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   None the less, it determined, and complained to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 August                      French authorities, that the inspections were insufficient
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            in number and lacking in thoroughness and that there
represented by M. van Lier and M. van Rijn, acting as Agents,                  are indications that turning a blind eye to breaches related
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     to certain undersized fish is generally tolerated.
                                                                        —      Penalty
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                              The Commission, referring to its communications of
                                                                               21 August 1996 (6) and 28 February 1997 ( 7), is applying
                                                                               to the basic amount of EUR 500 a factor of 10 (out of a
—     Declare that, by continuing to fail to undertake control
      activities ensuring compliance with the technical                        possible maximum of 20) for the seriousness of the
      measures for the conservation of fishery resources laid                  infringement, taking account in particular of the
                                                                               reduction of complaints in relation to the initial infringe-
      down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 171/83 of 25 Janu-
      ary 1983 ( 1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86                    ment, a factor of 3 (possible maximum: 3) for its duration
      of 7 October 1986 (2), and by thus failing to comply                     and a factor of 2.1 for France’s ability to pay.
      with the obligations laid down in Article 1 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
      lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by        (1 ) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 14.
      vessels of the Member States ( 3) and Article 1 of Council        (2 ) OJ L 288 of 11.10.1986, p. 1.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-                (3 ) OJ L 220 of 29.7.1982, p. 1.
      lishing certain control measures for fishing activities ( 4),     (4 ) OJ L 207 of 29.7.1987, p. 1.
      the French Republic has failed to apply all the measures          (5 ) ECR [1991] I-2748.
      necessary to implement the judgment of 11 June 1991,              (6 ) OJ C 242, p. 6.
                                                                        (7 ) OJ C 63, p. 2.
      Commission v France (C-64/88) ( 5) and has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;
—     Order the French Republic to pay to the Commission
      of the European Communities, into the account ‘own
      resources of the EC’, a penalty of EUR 316 500 per day
      of delay in implementing the necessary measures to
      comply with the judgment in Commission v France cited
      above, starting from the delivery of the present judgment
      and until the implementation of the judgment in Com-
      mission v France, cited above;                                    Action brought on 28 August 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-305/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2002/C 247/15)
—     Infringement of Community law, Article 228 EC:
      The Commission states that France did not act on the
      judgment of 11 June 1991 in Case C-64/88, in that it              An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 August
      —     failed to ensure compliance with technical conser-          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            vation measures relating to the minimum size of             represented by Lena Ström, acting as agent, with an address
            fish, in particular hake, and                               for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-543/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline
   (Case C-543/12)
   2013/C 63/14
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michal Zeman

      Defendant: Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(4) in conjunction with Article 3 [of Council Directive 91/477/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)] and Articles 45(1) and 52 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] to be interpreted as

                           (a)

                           precluding a Member State from adopting legislation which would prevent a European firearms pass from being issued under Article 1(4) of the Directive to the holder of a firearms licence (the relevant authorisation to possess a firearm), which was issued for a purpose other than for hunting or target shooting use and which otherwise allows that person to possess (and carry) the firearm for which he is requesting that that European firearms pass be issued,
                           despite the fact that:

                           (b)

                           the legislation of that Member State (the home State) allows the licence holder, even without the European firearms pass, to take that firearm out of its territory to the territory of another Member State provided, merely, that he meets reporting obligations, and, even where a European firearms pass was issued, the position of that licence holder would not change in any way in relation to that home Member State (that is to say, that person would only have to meet identical reporting obligations) ?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, where the legislation of the Member State precludes the issue of a European firearms pass to such a licence holder, does Article 1(4) of the Directive have direct effect so that the Member State is on the basis of that provision required to issue a European firearms pass to that licence holder?

               3.

               If the answer to the first or the second question is in the negative, is the competent authority required to interpret legislation of the Member State, which:

                           (a)

                           does not expressly prohibit the abovementioned licence holder from obtaining the European firearms pass, but

                           (b)

                           provides for the issue of a European firearms pass only to a person holding a firearms licence (the relevant authorisation to possess a firearm) which was issued for hunting or target shooting purposes,

         to the greatest possible extent so that the competent authority is required to issue a European firearms pass also to the holder of a firearms licence which was not issued for hunting or target shooting purposes, in so far as this is possible through giving indirect effect to the Directive?

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 256, p. 51.


title: Case T-180/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Promomadrid v OHIM (MADRIDEXPORTA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark MADRIDEXPORTA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/57

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Promomadrid v OHIM (MADRIDEXPORTA)
   (Case T-180/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark MADRIDEXPORTA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/99
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Promomadrid Desarrollo Internacional de Madrid, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark MADRIDEXPORTA as a Community trade mark.

      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 7 March 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-14/06: Action brought on  16 January 2006  — K-Swiss/OHIM

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/31

         Action brought on 16 January 2006 — K-Swiss/OHIM
   (Case T-14/06)
   (2006/C 86/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: K-Swiss (Westlake Village, USA) [represented by: H. E. Hübner, lawyer]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1);

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a shoe with five parallel stripes placed on the side for goods in class 25 (shoes for men, women and children) — application No 2 788 511

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the combination of the characteristic elements of the mark applied for is inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of the applicant from those of others. Breach of the principle of non-discrimination as the OHIM allowed the registration of among others a figurative mark representing a shoe with two parallel stripes placed on the front of the shoe.


title: Case C-463/05: Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-463/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/70)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.02.2006.


title: Case C-142/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid — Spain) — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Refurbishment and improvement works on urban roads — Whether subject to assessment)

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid — Spain) — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Ayuntamiento de Madrid
   (Case C-142/07) (1)

   (Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Refurbishment and improvement works on urban roads - Whether subject to assessment)
   (2008/C 236/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA

      Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid
   Re:
   REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Urban road projects in densely populated areas or concerning landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance — Whether subject to an assessment procedure having regard to their nature, size and effect — Applicability of the criteria in the judgment of the Court in Case C-332/04 Commission v Spain

   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it provides for environmental impact assessment of refurbishment and improvement projects for urban roads, either where they are projects covered by point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I to the directive, or where they are projects covered by point 10(e) of Annex II or the first indent of point 13 thereof, which are likely, by virtue of their nature, size or location and, if appropriate, having regard to their interaction with other projects, to have significant effects on the environment.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-250/14: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — EEB v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Correspondence between the Commission and two Member States regarding the implementation of a Transitional National Plan (TNP) under Directive 2010/75/EU — Implied refusal of access — No need to adjudicate — New claims — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/36

         Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-250/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence between the Commission and two Member States regarding the implementation of a Transitional National Plan (TNP) under Directive 2010/75/EU - Implied refusal of access - No need to adjudicate - New claims - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 213/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Stothers, Solicitor, M. Van Kerckhove and C. Simphal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) for the annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.

               2)

               The claims for damages presented by the EEB are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               3)

               The Commission is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the EEB.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2004 in Case C-3/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia v Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 85/384/EEC — Mutual recognition of formal qualifications in architecture — Articles 10 and 11(g) — National legislation recognising the equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified heritage buildings to architects — Principle of equal treatment — Situation purely internal to a Member State)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/25

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 5 April 2004
   in Case C-3/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia v Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 85/384/EEC - Mutual recognition of formal qualifications in architecture - Articles 10 and 11(g) - National legislation recognising the equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified heritage buildings to architects - Principle of equal treatment - Situation purely internal to a Member State)
   (2004/C 118/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-3/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, in the presence of: Comune di San Martino Buon Albergo (VR), Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori, Ordine degli Archittetti de Verona and Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri – on the interpretation of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15), in particular Articles 10 and 11(g) of that directive, and on the principle of equal treatment – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   In matters purely internal to a Member State, neither Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, in particular Articles 10 and 11(g) thereof, nor the principle of equal treatment precludes national legislation which recognises in principle the equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on inter alia classified heritage buildings to architects only.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002


title: Case C-354/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 22 July 2014  — SC Capoda Import Export SRL v Registrul Auto Român, Bejan Benone Nicolae

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 22 July 2014 — SC Capoda Import Export SRL v Registrul Auto Român, Bejan Benone Nicolae
   (Case C-354/14)
   2014/C 361/05
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant for revision: SC Capoda Import Export SRL

      Defendants: Registrul Auto Român, Bejan Benone Nicolae

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can EU law, specifically Article 34 TFEU, Article 31(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (1) and Article 1(1)(t) and (u) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (2) be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law such as that referred to in Article 1(2), of OG (Ordonanţa Guvernului; Government Decree) No 80/2000, in so far as it puts in place a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports, given that, in accordance with that rule, for the free movement (sale, distribution) of new products and consumable materials, included in the category of those relating to the safety of road traffic, the protection of the environment, energy efficiency and the protection against thefts of road vehicles, either an approval certificate or a certification for release for free circulation and/or marketing released by the manufacturer must be presented by the seller/distributor/dealer, or, where the seller/distributor/dealer had not obtained or was not in possession of such a certificate or certification, the certification procedure for products in question must be completed with the Registrul Auto Român (Romanian Automobile Register; ‘RAR’) and an approval certificate for release for free circulation and/or marketing released by the RAR must be obtained, and given that, even where the seller/distributor/dealer is in possession of a certificate of conformity for release for free circulation and/or marketing of parts made available by the distributor of a European Union Member State, which distributes freely such parts within the territory of that European Union Member State, such a certificate is not sufficient to allow for free movement/sale/distribution of the goods in question?

               2.

               Can EU law, specifically Article 34 TFEU, relating to the notion of ‘measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction’, Article 31(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC and Article 1(1)(t) and (u) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, be interpreted as precluding a national rule which provides that the certificate of conformity for the purpose of the placing on the market and/or marketing provided by the distributor in another EU Member State in relation to new products and consumable materials, included in the category of those relating to the safety of road traffic, environmental protection, energy efficiency and protection against thefts of road vehicles, is insufficient to allow the free marketing of new products and consumable materials, included in the category of those relating to the safety of road traffic, environmental protection, energy efficiency and protection against thefts of road vehicles, given that that distributor from another European Union Member State distributes these parts freely within the territory of that other European Union Member State, and notwithstanding the fact that, in accordance with the said certificate, the parts in question may be marketed in the territory of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ L 263, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30).


title: Case C-342/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of lawyers to provide services — Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land — Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer
   (Case C-342/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of lawyers to provide services - Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land - Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary))
   (2017/C 144/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant: Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognising in that Member State such authentication carried out by a lawyer established in another Member State.

               2.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognition in that Member State of such authentication carried out, in accordance with his or her national law, by a lawyer established in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-178/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Jaczewski v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/46

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Jaczewski v Commission
   (Case T-178/13)
   2013/C 156/86
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grzegorz Jaczewski (Bielany, Poland) (represented by: M. Goss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the European Commission implementing decision of 24 July 2012 (notified under document No C(2012) 5049) approving the grant of complementary national direct payments in Poland for 2012 pursuant to Article 132 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, which decision has introduced the application of modulation to complementary national direct payments exceeding EUR 5 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges that the Commission infringed the principle of the hierarchy of legal rules by adopting measures contrary to Article 132 of Regulation No 73/2009, in light of the application of Article 7(1), in conjunction with Article 10, of that regulation, in that it applied modulation to complementary national direct payments although the modulation mechanism is not applicable in new Member States in respect of 2012.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 39 TFEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) thereof, given that the application of modulation in relation to complementary national direct payments leads to the amounts paid to farmers in the new Member States being reduced to a level lower than the amounts paid to their counterparts in Member States other than new Member States and that account was not taken, when the contested decision was adopted, of the diversity of the situations in individual regions of the European Union.


title: Case T-240/01: Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Jean-Louis Cougnon against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 331/34             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
During an audit of the subsidies granted to the applicant, the          Pleas in law and main arguments
Eurostat internal audit unit found that subsidies had been paid
but not used and some expenditure that was not eligible. The            In support of his action, the applicant invokes an infringement
Commission subsequently decided to take steps to recover the            of the terms of the vacancy notice, an error in the assessment
amount in question.                                                     of those terms, and infringement of the principle of the
                                                                        protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant further
The applicant claims that the audit carried out by the                  pleads infringement of the principle of equal treatment as
Commission does not correctly evaluate certain information              between internal candidates and candidates external to the
and data and does not apply the principles in force concerning          institution inasmuch as the internal candidates had the benefit
internal Commission audits. The applicant also alleges that the         of being known by the appointing authority.
audit was one-sided and carried out by a service dependent on
one of the Contracting Parties. The applicant finally submits
that not all of the documents available were taken into
consideration in the audit.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-53/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Jean-Louis Cou-
gnon against the Court of Justice of the European Com-
                            munities                                    By order of 11 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-240/01)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-53/01, Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities.
                       (2001/C 331/56)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Jean-                          Removal from the register of Case T-98/01 (1)
Louis Cougnon, residing in Capellen, Luxembourg, represented
by Joëlle Choucron, avocat, with an address for service in                                      (2001/C 331/58)
Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the procedure for filling the post of Director of            By order of 30 July 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
     Personnel and Finances — career bracket A 2 — referred             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     to in Vacancy Notice CJ 78/00 received and published on            has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-98/01,
     17 October 2000,                                                   Filippos Pierros v Commission of the European Communities.
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.


title: Case T-779/14: Action brought on 26 November 2014  — Slovakia v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/27

         Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Slovakia v Commission
   (Case T-779/14)
   (2015/C 089/33)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision contained in the letter of 24 September 2014 requiring the Slovak Republic to provide financial means corresponding to the loss of traditional own resources;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      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 lack of competence of the Commission
               According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission does not have competence to adopt the contested decision. No provision of EU law confers competence on the Commission to act as it did by issuing the contested decision, namely competence, following the calculation of the amount of the loss of traditional own resources in the form of import duty not collected, to oblige a Member State which was not responsible for assessing and collecting that duty to provide financial means in the amount established by the Commission and corresponding in its view to the loss stated.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the requirement of legal certainty
               Even if the Commission had competence to adopt the contested decision (quod non), in this case the Commission, according to the Slovak Republic, infringed the principle of legal certainty. The obligation of the Slovak Republic imposed on it by the contested decision could not, in its opinion, have been reasonably foreseen before it was adopted.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging incorrect exercise of competence by the Commission
               Even if the Commission had competence to adopt the contested decision and also proceeded, when adopting the contested decision, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), according to the Slovak Republic, it did not exercise its competence correctly in this case. In the first place, the Commission made an obviously incorrect assessment in so far as it requires financial means from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that in part there was no loss of traditional own resources at all and for the rest there was no loss as a direct consequence of the events the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. In the second place, the Commission committed a breach of the rights of defence of the Slovak Republic and the principle of sound administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision
               The Slovak Republic asserts in this plea in law that the reasoning of the contested decision has several defects, as a result of which it must be regarded as inadequate, which constitutes a breach of essential procedural requirements and is also in conflict with the requirements of legal certainty. In the contested decision, according to the Slovak Republic, the Commission did not state the legal basis of that decision. In addition, it did not explain the grounds and basis of some of its conclusions. Finally, according to the Slovak Republic, the reasoning of the contested decision is confused in some respects.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 15 July 1997 in the case of Sezgin Ergat v. Stadt Ulm (Case C-329/97)

text:
C 357/ 14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 11 . 97
     'Taxofit Vitamin C + Ca effervescent pills' and                      the European Communities on 23 September 1997 by the
     'Taxofit Vitamin C chewable pills' are to be assigned                Portuguese Republic, represented by Joao Mota de
     to heading 3004 ('medicaments . . . consisting of                    Campos, Dr Luis Fernandes and Dr Maria Luisa Duarte,
     mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic or                         acting as Agents, with an adress for service in
      prophylactic uses, put up in . . . forms or packings for            Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy 33 Allee Scheffer.
      retail sale'), when they contain 1 000 mg and 500 mg
      of Vitamin C ( ascorbic acid ) per pill respectively, are
      imported in packings for retail sale, are to be used —
      according to the information on use which is                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
      contained in the leaflets enclosed with the packs and
      indicates a specific dose — inter alia 'to build up
      resistance: for colds and influenza infections, . . . and           — annul Commission Decision C(97) 2130 Final of 9 July
      allergic processes' and ' as a prophylactic at times of                 1997 on the measures taken by Portugal for the
      increased risk of infection' respectively, and are                      benefit of EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimenta^ao e
      authorized as medicinal products in the Federal                         Cereais SA,
      Republic of Germany ?
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
tungsgericht by order of that court of 15 July 1997 in the
                 case of Sezgin Ergat v. Stadt Ulm
                          ( Case C-329/97 )
                                                                          — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
                             ( 97/C 357/25 )                                   ( contradictory and inadequate statement of reasons for
                                                                              the decision ).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesverwal
tungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court ) of 15 July                  — Infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                             guarantee granted by the Portuguese Government for
22 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                     financing by the banks of Esc 30 billion intended to
Sezgin Ergat v. Stadt Ulm on the following question:                          convert EPAC's short-term debts into medium-term
                                                                               liabilities does not constitute State aid to EPAC . The
                                                                              granting of a guarantee to what is no more than an
Does a Turkish national who has entered the country as a
                                                                               operation for the restructuring of the debts of a public
member of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered
                                                                               undertaking does not involve any transfer of resources
as belonging to the labour force, without requiring a                          from the State to that undertaking. The rate of interest
residence permit in accordance with the national law on                        on the loans negotiated between EPAC and the
foreigners in force at the date of entry, and has
                                                                               international consortium of banks reflects only the
subsequently been in possession of residence permits with                      desire on the part of the credit institutions involved to
interruptions, but who has applied for extension of his last                   make viable a financing operation whose objective was
residence permit 26 days after its expiry, satisfy the
                                                                               the restructuring of debts which had previously been
conditions in the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision
                                                                               short-term, posing a threat to EPAC's solvency and
No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council that he
                                                                               thus to the repayment of those banks ' credits, into
has been ' legally resident' there 'for at least three years'                  long-term liabilities.
( first indent) or 'for at least five years' ( second indent ), if
the     national    authorities     have  refused   to   extend  the
residence permit ?
                                                                               EPAC is an exclusively public capital undertaking. It is
                                                                               for the State, as the owner of the whole of the capital,
                                                                               therefore, to ensure it can continue to attain the
                                                                               general interest objectives it was created to achieve, in
                                                                               particular, the purpose of guaranteeing the purchase of
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Portuguese                          cereals from Portuguese farmers and the country's
       Republic against the Commission of the European                         supply of an essential basic good. The Portuguese
                               Communities                                      State, both in its capacity as sole shareholder and as
                                                                               administrator of the public interest, has both the right
                           ( Case C-330/97 )                                    and the exclusive obligation to support EPAC. By
                              ( 97/C 357/26 )                                   offering concrete support by granting the guarantee,
                                                                                the State did not place EPAC at an economic or
                                                                                financial advantage which it might not have obtained
 An action against the Commission of the European                               under the basic rule of the private investor operating
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                         in a market economy.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC — ‘Quantity of waste’ — Exemption from permit requirement)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC - ‘Quantity of waste’ - Exemption from permit requirement)
   (2004/C 300/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 March 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to fix, in the Decree of 5 February 1998 relating to the identification of non-hazardous waste subject to simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and 33 of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997, maximum quantities of waste by type of waste which may be recovered under the permit exemption scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 and 11(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

               2.

               Declares that, by failing to define precisely the types of waste relating to technical standards 5.9 and 7.8 of Annex 1 to that decree, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, and Article 3 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders each party to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.


title: Case T-478/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/49

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-478/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision 2010/419/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, a French ‘département’ with a large agricultural sector and which cultivates vast fields of maize, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/419/EU authorising the marketing of genetically modified maize or products containing such maize.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law:

               —

               A plea of illegality raised against Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, (1) on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, in so far as:

                           —

                           Regulation No 1829/2003 infringes the principle of institutional balance in that (i) the European Parliament did not have any power during the authorisation procedure while the Commission had too much power, and (ii) the Member States were left without any discretion;

                           —

                           Regulation No 1829/2003 infringes the precautionary principle in that it fails to take sufficient account of the threats to public health, the environment, agriculture and rearing which genetically modified food and feed would pose;

                           —

                           Regulation No 1829/2003 infringes the rights of consumers, first, by failing to provide for any measure enabling consumers to be informed that the animals which they consume have been fed GMOs and, second, by permitting substantively incorrect information regarding the absence of GMOs in products which actually contain GMOs but in a proportion no higher than 0.9 %;

               —

               the contested decision is unlawful:

                           —

                           it fails to provide sufficient reasoning, which constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in so far as the Commission's decision merely refers to the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’);

                           —

                           the Commission failed to exercise the powers invested in it (‘incompétence négative’) by refraining from exercising its discretion, which constitutes a misuse of procedure;

                           —

                           the precautionary principle was infringed, since the methods of evaluation used by EFSA were incomplete and the evaluation of maize Bt11 was too uncertain;

                           —

                           the rights of consumers were infringed by failing to label animals fed with maize Bt11 and due to a lack of transparency in relation to products containing less than 0.9% of maize Bt11.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1.


title: Case T-370/10: Order of the General Court of 4 December 2012 — Rubinetterie Flero v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Order of the General Court of 4 December 2012 — Rubinetterie Flero v Commission
   (Case T-370/10) (1)

   2013/C 32/43
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-64/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ v Melitta Josefa Boedeker (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Contract of employment — Article 6(2) — Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties — Law of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ — Contract more closely connected with another Member State)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ v Melitta Josefa Boedeker
   (Case C-64/12) (1)

   (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Article 6(2) - Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties - Law of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ - Contract more closely connected with another Member State)
   2013/C 325/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’

      Defendant: Melitta Josefa Boedeker

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Law applicable where none chosen — Employment contract — Law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work — Employee who has carried out his work for a lengthy period and without interruption in a particular Member State — Employment contract which appears, in the light of all the other circumstances of the case, to be very closely connected with another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that, even where an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract habitually, for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the national court may, under the concluding part of that provision, disregard the law of the country where the work is habitually carried out, if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-424/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme established by the Italian authorities for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Selective nature of the measure — Effect on trade between the Member States and distortion of competition — Article 87(3)(c) EC)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-424/05) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme established by the Italian authorities for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market - Obligation to state reasons - Selective nature of the measure - Effect on trade between the Member States and distortion of competition - Article 87(3)(c) EC)
   2009/C 90/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/638/EC of 6 September 2005 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies listed on regulated markets (OJ 2006 L 268, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case T-548/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Total v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/59

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Total v Commission
   (Case T-548/08)
   (2009/C 44/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A Noël-Baron, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               as the main plea, annulment under Article 230 EC of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities No C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, in so far as it concerns TOTAL SA;

               —

               in the alternative, annulment under Article 230 EC of the fine of EUR 128 163 000 imposed jointly and severally on TOTAL FRANCE and TOTAL SA by Article 2 of the above-mentioned decision;

               —

               further in the alternative, reduction of the said fine pursuant to Article 229 EC;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission's decision C(2008) 5476 final, of 1 October 2008, in case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes, in which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices and partitioning the markets for paraffin waxes in the European Economic Area (EEA) and gatsch in Germany.
   In support of its action, the applicant makes nine pleas in law, claiming:

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence and the presumption of the applicant's innocence, inasmuch as the contested decision infringed the scope ratione personae of those rights and by reason of procedural irregularities during the investigation phase and circular reasoning in the decision itself;

               —

               contradiction in reasoning as regards (i) the need to verify whether the parent company actually exercised a decisive influence over its subsidiary and (ii) the content of the control which a parent company must exercise over its subsidiary for it to be possible to impute the infringement to the parent company;

               —

               infringement of the rules governing the imputability of infringements of Article 81 EC amongst groups of companies, inasmuch as (i) the contested decision erroneously stated that the Commission was not required to produce evidence supporting the presumption and (ii) the contested decision infringed the principle of legal and economic autonomy of any subsidiary on which national company laws are based;

               —

               manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as (i) the appointment of TOTAL FRANCE board members by TOTAL SA did not strengthen the presumption of decisive influence and (ii) the evidence produced by TOTAL SA enabled the presumption of decisive influence to be definitively rebutted;

               —

               infringement of the principles of liability for one's own actions and the limitation of sanctions to the person concerned, and of the principle of legality, in that the Commission found the existence of an economic unity between TOTAL SA and TOTAL FRANCE;

               —

               infringement of the principles of legal certainty and sound administration, inasmuch as the imputability to TOTAL SA of the infringement allegedly committed by its subsidiary TOTAL FRANCE was based on a new criterion and (ii) the Commission did not assess the situation on a case-by-case basis as it had stated it would do;

               —

               misuse of powers, the object of Regulation No 1/2003 being to penalise an undertaking for committing an infringement of the competition rules and not to maximise the penalty on that company by involving the parent company;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality in that the final amount of the fine imposed on the applicant and its subsidiary were entirely disconnected from the value of the product sales in relation to the infringement alleged by the decision; and

               —

               reduction of the fine, the practices alleged being neither as serious or as long in duration as the Commission claims, and the rights of the defence having been seriously infringed.


title: Case C-68/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic), lodged on 10 February 2012 — Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic), lodged on 10 February 2012 — Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
   (Case C-68/12)
   2012/C 165/13
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s.

      Defendant: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that it is of legal relevance that a competitor (trader) adversely affected by a cartel agreement between other competitors (traders) was operating on the relevant market illegally at the time when the cartel agreement was concluded?

               2.

               For the purposes of interpreting Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC), is it of legal relevance that, at the time when the cartel agreement was concluded, the legality of that competitor’s (trader’s) conduct was not called in question by the competent supervisory bodies in the Slovak Republic?

               3.

               Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of the representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative, who has (or may have) taken part in that agreement, to the conduct of one of the undertaking’s employees, where the undertaking has not distanced itself from the conduct of that employee and, at the same time, the agreement has even been implemented?

               4.

               Is Article 101(3) TFEU (formerly Article 81(3) EC) to be interpreted as also applying to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) which by its nature has the effect of excluding from the market a specific individual competitor (trader) which has subsequently been found to have been carrying out foreign currency transactions on the cashless payment transactions market without holding the appropriate licence as required under national law?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-269/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (FIRS) (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EEC) No 2225/86 - Aid for the marketing of cane sugar produced in the French overseas departments - Concept of refinery)

text:
C 397/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
     coordination of procedures for the award of public              Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
     service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that           common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
     the legislature drew a distinction between needs in the         (OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4), and Council Regulation (EEC)
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial         No 2225/86 of 15 July 1986 laying down measures for
     character and needs in the general interest having an           the marketing of sugar produced in the French overseas
     industrial or commercial character.                             departments and for the equalisation of the price
                                                                     conditions with preferential raw sugar (OJ L 194,
                                                                     17.7.1986, p. 7) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),
2. The term needs in the general interest, not having an            composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
     industrial or commercial character' does not exclude            H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
     needs which are or can be satisfied by private                  N. Fennelli, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
     undertakings as well.                                           given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has
                                                                     ruled:
3. The status of a body governed by public law is not
     dependent on the relative importance, within its                In an industrial complex that includes:
     business as a whole, of the meeting of needs in the
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial
     character. It is likewise immaterial that commercial            Ð installations which first process sugar beet and extract
     activities may be carried out by a separate legal person             the sugar-bearing liquids, and
     forming part of the same group or concern as it.
                                                                     Ð installations which then convert into white sugar the
4. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive                   liquids and syrups in question, which are enriched by
     92/50/EEC must be interperted as meaning that the                    the addition of raw cane sugar from the French
     existence or absence of needs in the general interest                overseas departments,
     not having an industrial or commercial character must
     be appraised objectively, the legal form of the
     provisions in which those needs are mentioned being             the latter installations cannot be regarded, for the
     immaterial in that respect.                                     processing of raw cane sugar from the French overseas
                                                                     departments, either permanently or intermittently, as a
                                                                     production unit' or as a refinery' within the meaning of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                     the third subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                                                                     common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector,
                                                                     as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1482/85 of
                                                                     23 May 1985.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 12 November 1998
in Case C-269/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Sucreries et
Raffineries d'Erstein SA v. Fonds d'Intervention et de                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre (FIRS) (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EEC)
No 2225/86 Ð Aid for the marketing of cane sugar                                         of 12 November 1998
produced in the French overseas departments Ð Concept                in Case C-352/96: Italian Republic v. Council of the
                           of refinery)                                                   European Union (1)
                         (98/C 397/22)                               (Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 1522/96 Ð
                                                                     Introduction and administration of certain tariff quotas
                 (Language of the case: French)                                   for imports of rice and broken rice)
                                                                                (98/C 397/23)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-269/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris                        published in the European Court Reports)
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sucreries et Raffineries
d'Erstein SA and Fonds d'Intervention et de ReÂgularisation          In Case C-352/96: Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto
du MarcheÂ du Sucre Ð on the interpretation of Council               Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo) v. Council of the


title: Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-108/95)

text:
No C 159/8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, a member of
                                                                      the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                Kremlis , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1 January 1993 . Contrary to what the defendant maintains,
complete and correct implementation of the Directive was              The applicant claims that the Court should :
not made impossible by the fact that the additional
provisions envisaged in Article 13 of the Directive,                  déclaré that the Italian Republic:
concerning loading density and the feeding, watering and
rest intervals to be observed, remain outstanding.                    — by failing to communicate the necessary provisions by
                                                                            law, regulation or administrative action to comply with
(M OJ No L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p . 17 .                                  Council Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ( a ) of 17 September 1990
                                                                            on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
                                                                            the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                            sectors , or by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
                                                                            comply therewith, in breach of Article 37 ( 1 ) of that
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of                        Directive, and
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                      — by failing to adopt by law, regulation or administrative
                              Germany
                                                                            action the necessary provisions to comply with Council
                       ( Case C-108/95 )                                    Directive 92/50/EEC ( 2 ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                          ( 95/C 159/16 )                                   coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                            service contracts, and in any event by failing to
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                       communicate such provisions, in breach of the first
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         subparagraph of Article 44 ( 1 ) of that Directive,
Communities on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-79/95 ; the time limits for implementation expired on
     time limit the measures necessary to comply with                  1 July 1992 ( Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ) and 1 July 1993
     Commission Directive 93/ 17/EEC of 30 March 1993                 ( Directive 92/50/EEC ).
     determining Community grades of basic seed potatoes,
     together with the conditions and designations                    (•) OJ No L 297, 29 . 10 . 1990 , p . 1 .
     applicable to such grades ( ! ), the Federal Republic of         ( 2 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty and under that Directive;
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by
                                                                      decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Texaco A/S v. Port of Middelfart and Others
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                      ( Case C-1 14/95
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                                             ( 95/C 159/ 18
 1 June 1993 .
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No L 106 , 30 . 4 . 1993 , p . 7.                              European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                                                                       ( Eastern Regional Court ) of 24 March 1995 , which was
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Texaco A/S v. Port of
                                                                      Middelfart and Others on the following questions:
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                1 . Must the compatibility with Community law of a 40 %
                        ( Case C-1 13/95 )
                                                                             surcharge on a general goods duty, which is levied by a
                                                                             Member State when goods are imported by ship from
                           ( 95/C 159/17)                                    another Member State, be assessed in the light of:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    (A ) — Articles 9 to 13 of the EC Treaty, if necessary in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                    conjunction with Articles 18 to 29 and Council
31 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987


title: Case T-109/03: Action brought on 28 March 2003 by Arran Aromatics Limited, Mr Iain Russel and Mr Allastair Rennick against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.6.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 135/33
however, provides that operations to colour sugar or to form             Commission, it argues, was wrong to turn down the request
sugar lumps constitute insufficient processing to confer OCT             for a derogation on the ground that, both for sugar from an
origin. Those products of the applicant thus no longer qualify           ACP country and for sugar from a non-ACP country, the added
for OCT origin.                                                          value after processing by the applicant came to more than
                                                                         45 %. According to the applicant, Article 37(7) of Annex III to
                                                                         the OCT Decision makes no provision for such a comparison
                                                                         and consequently makes no provision for any such ground for
The Kingdom of the Netherlands subsequently applied for a                rejection of the request for a derogation.
derogation in favour of the applicant. That request was rejected
in the contested decision.
                                                                         (1 ) Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association
                                                                              of the overseas countries and territories with the European
                                                                              Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).
The applicant first of all raises an objection that Article 5(1)(g)      (2 ) Appendix 2 to Annex III to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of
of Annex III to the OCT Decision is unlawful. In the applicant’s              27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries
view, it is incorrect to state that operations to colour sugar or             and territories with the European Community (‘the OCT Decision’)
to form sugar lumps constitute insufficient processing for the                (OJ 2001 L 324, p. 1).
                                                                         (3 ) Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the
purpose of conferring OCT origin. The applicant submits that
                                                                              association of the overseas countries and territories with the
this provision infringes the principle of non-discrimination                  European Community (‘the OCT Decision’) (OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1).
and that it is arbitrary and at variance with the principles of
the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.
The applicant goes on to argue that the Commission had no
power in view of the fact that the contested decision was
adopted after the expiry of the decision-making period of 75
working days laid down in Article 37(8)(a) of Annex III to the           Action brought on 28 March 2003 by Arran Aromatics
OCT Decision. The applicant contends that the request for a              Limited, Mr Iain Russel and Mr Allastair Rennick against
derogation ought therefore to be deemed to have been                             the Commission of the European Communities
accepted pursuant to Article 37(8)(b) of Annex III to the OCT
Decision.
                                                                                (Case T-109/03)
The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been a                                             (2003/C 135/54)
breach of Article 37 of Annex III to the OCT Decision and a
manifest misappraisal of the facts. The applicant submits that                                (Language of the case: English)
the Commission is confusing the conditions of Article 37 of
Annex III to the OCT Decision.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant argues that cumulation of origin does not                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represent an alternative solution for it. Importation of ACP             European Communities on 28 March 2003 by Arran Aro-
sugar cannot be justified in view of the high price. Such sugar,         matics Limited, Isle of Arran, Scotland, Mr Iain Russel, Isle of
it argues, is also unsuitable with regard to quality. The                Arran, Scotland, and Mr Allastair Rennick, Isle of Arran,
applicant submits that the condition governing derogation set            Scotland, represented by Mr C. Pouncey, Solicitor and
out in Article 37(4) of Annex III to the OCT Decision is                 Mr L. Van Den Hende, lawyer.
thereby also satisfied.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant goes on to argue that, under Article 37(3)(b) of           —      Order the defendant to pay damages pursuant to
Annex III to the OCT Decision, application of the existing                      Article 288 EC for the losses sustained by them through
rules of origin would significantly reduce its prospects of                     the breaches of community law set out in the application,
continuing to export to the EC. In its view, the Commission is                  all sums to be increased with compensatory interest at a
wrong to impose as a necessary condition for a derogation the                   rate of 8 % to be applied from the day on which the
requirement that application of the existing rules of origin                    damage materialised;
would lead to cessation of its activities.
                                                                         —      Order the defendant to pay legal interest on such sums as
                                                                                are found to be due at a rate of 8 %;
The applicant further contends that the Commission misap-
plied Article 37(7) of Annex III to the OCT Decision. The                —      Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/34               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           7.6.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        27 March 2003 by L’Oréal S.A., Paris, France, represented by
                                                                        Mr X. Buffet Delmas d’Autane, lawyer.
In 1999 the World Trade Organisation found that the EC
regime for the importation of bananas, as amended by Council
Regulation No 1637/98 ( 1) and Commission Regulation
No 2362/98 (2), was WTO-incompatible. Following that ruling,            A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
the United States, with WTO authorisation, adopted certain              was Revlon (Suisse) S.A.
retaliatory measures against EC products. These measures
included a 100 % duty on bath preparations imported to the
US from the EC. The first applicant is a Scottish company               The applicant claims that the Court should:
which produces, amongst other things, bath products, a large
proportion of which it used to export to the United States. The
other two applicants are officers of that company. The                  —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
applicants allege that as a result of the retaliatory measures,               the OHIM of 15 January 2003 regarding the appeal
the first applicant’s sales to the US decreased substantially                 No R0396/2001-4 relating to the opposition proceedings
causing it to suffer serious material losses and subjecting the               No B 215048 (Community application No 1011576);
other two applicants to stress and anxiety which caused them
non-material damage. The applicants claim compensation
under Articles 235 and 288 EC. In support of their application          —     order that the costs of the action and the appeal are to be
they submit that, by adopting Regulation 2362/98, the                         borne by the OHIM.
defendant violated the fundamental policy of the Community
to make the ‘banana regime’ WTO compatible as well as a
clear mandate from the European Council to that effect.
Moreover, Regulation 2362/98 allegedly violates the freedom
to pursue a trade or business, the principle of proportionality,        Pleas in law and main arguments
the principle of non-discrimination and finally the principle of
good faith in international law and the legitimate expectations
traders can derive from that. According to the applicants the
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-         L’Oréal S.A.
breach of law is manifest and serious and the rules of law
                                                                        munity trade mark:
violated qualify as rules for the protection of the individual.
Further, there exists a causal link between the unlawfulness of
Regulation 2362/98 and the damage allegedly suffered by the             Community trade mark           The word mark ‘FLEXI AIR’ for
applicants, entitling the latter to compensation.                       sought:                        certain goods in class 3 (Sham-
                                                                                poos; gels, mousses and balms;
                                                                                essential oils; ...) (Application
( 1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 28.                                                                       No 1011576)
( 2) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32.
                                                                        Proprietor of mark or          Revlon (Suisse) S.A.
                                                                        sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                        sition proceedings:
                                                                        Mark or sign cited in          Several national word marks
                                                                        opposition:                    ‘FLEX’ for certain goods in class 3
                                                                                and 34 (soaps, essential oils,
Action brought on 27 March 2003 by L’Oréal S.A. against                                                Shampoo, ...)
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
              (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the community trade
                                                                        sition Division:               mark application.
                         (Case T-112/03)
                                                                        Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal brought
                         (2003/C 135/55)                                Appeal:                        by L’Oréal S.A.
                                                                        Pleas in law:                  —     Breach of article 43(2) of
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                                Council regulation No 40/
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                94 ( 1) and rule 22(1) Com-
                         submitted: English)
                                                                                mission           Regulation
                                                                                No 2868/95 ( 2) in that there
                                                                                is, according to the appli-
                                                                                cant, no time limit for the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               applicant to request evidence
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                   of use.