title: Case T-453/12: Action brought on 12 October 2012 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/50

         Action brought on 12 October 2012 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)
   (Case T-453/12)
   2013/C 26/102
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 August 2012 in case R 1119/2011-4, so as to reject the opposition in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZOOSPORT’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8909251

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5233119 for the word mark ‘ZOOT’, for goods in classes 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 4719316 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS’, for goods and services in classes 25, 35, 36 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Accusations against an official — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of request for financial assistance)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/35

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 July 2005
   in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Accusations against an official - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of request for financial assistance)
   (2005/C 217/78)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-387/02: Dorte Schmidt-Brown, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's request seeking financial assistance from the Commission in an action for defamation brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; I. Natsinas, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003


title: Case C-272/00: Action brought on 6 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 259/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
May a Member State treat the use for private residential                 Action brought on 6 July 2000 by the Commission of the
purposes of a dwelling in business premises forming as a                    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
whole part of the assets of the business — which is equated to
a supply of services for consideration under Article 6(2)(a) of
Directive 77/388/EEC (1) — as tax-exempt (in accordance with                                      (Case C-272/00)
Article 13B(b) of that directive, but without the possibility of
waiving the exemption), with the result that deduction under
Article 17(2)(a) of the directive of the value added tax which                                    (2000/C 259/14)
arose in connection with the construction of the premises is
precluded to that extent?
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, and Frank
                                                                         Benyon, Legal Adviser in the same Service, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep, sitting in Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
27 June 2000 in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL)                    1.    declare that, since Article 40 of Law No 2065/92 provides
                         against L. Baten                                      that flights from Greece of a distance in excess of 750 km
                                                                               are subject to a higher tax than flights of a distance below
                         (Case C-271/00)                                       750 km, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under Article 49 EC (ex Article 59 of the
                                                                               Treaty) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (2000/C 259/13)                                       No 2408/92 (1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep                   2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(Court of Appeal), sitting in Antwerp, of 27 June 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL) against
L. Baten on the following questions:                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Is an action concerning a claim for recovery under the
      Netherlands Algemene Bijstandswet (General Law on
      Social Assistance) brought by a municipality entitled to           The Greek legislation is inconsistent with the freedom to
      seek recovery against a person liable to pay maintenance,          provide services laid down in the EC Treaty, with Council
      as referred to in Article 93 of the Algemene Bijstandswet,         Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers
      a civil matter within the meaning of Article 1, first              to intra-Community air routes and with the exercise of the
      paragraph, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on               right to move freely within the territory of the Member States
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil             which is granted to the citizens of the European Union under
      and Commercial Matters, and can a judicial decision                Article 8a of the Treaty (now Article 18 EC). It is stated in the
      delivered in such an action come for that reason within            letter of formal notice that the freedom to provide services
      the scope of that Convention?                                      enacted in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2408/92 must be
                                                                         interpreted in direct conjunction with the general principles
2.    Is an action concerning a claim for recovery under                 concerning the freedom to provide services and, finally, it is
      the Netherlands Algemene Bijstandswet brought by a                 stated that the regulation is infringed where air routes between
      municipality entitled to seek recovery against a person            Member States are accorded less favourable treatment, particu-
      liable to pay maintenance, as referred to in Article 93 of         larly as regards their taxation, than comparable air routes in
      the Algemene Bijstandswet, a case relating to social               the same Member State.
      security within the meaning of Article 1, second para-
      graph, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968
      on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
      and Commercial Matters, and does a judicial decision               (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
      delivered in such an action fall for that reason outside the
      scope of that Convention?


title: Case C-450/17 P: Appeal brought on 26 July 2017 by the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15, Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/27

         Appeal brought on 26 July 2017 by the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15, Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank
   (Case C-450/17 P)
   (2017/C 293/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (represented by: A. Glos, T. Lübbig and M. Benzing, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15;

               —

               annul the decision of the ECB of 5 January 2015 (ECB/SSM/15/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/3), ordering the effects of the substituted decision of the ECB of 1 September 2014 (ECB/SSM/14/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/1) to be maintained;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to above and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of EU law in the interpretation and application of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation (1) and Article 70 of the SSM Framework Regulation (2)

               The General Court incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation, in conjunction with Article 70(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation. It incorrectly concluded that ‘particular circumstances’, which must lead to the classification of an entity as a less significant entity, exist only if direct supervision by the national authorities is better suited to achieving the aim of the SSM Regulation than direct supervision by the ECB. The General Court relied solely on the English language version of the SSM Framework Regulation in its interpretation and infringed the principle that all language versions are equally authentic. The General Court wrongly failed to interpret the standards in the light of superior law through the competence approach of the principle of proportionality. It incorrectly rejected a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of the facts of the case by the ECB and assessed as little as the ECB had done previously whether the appellant, by reason of the specific factual circumstances put forward by it, is to be classified as a less significant entity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation, in conjunction with Article 70(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation, due to ‘particular circumstances’. The General Court therefore infringed its obligation comprehensively to review the contested decision for errors of assessment.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the contested decision and an incorrect assessment of the requirements applicable to the statement of reasons
               The General Court distorted the reasoning of the contested decision and substituted its own reasoning for that of the ECB. Since it distorted the content of the contested decision, it disregarded the fact that the ECB did not respect the EU-law requirements relating to the obligation to state reasons: the reasoning of the contested decision is illogical and inherently contradictory.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging procedural errors on the part of the General Court through the introduction of elements which are not the subject of these proceedings
               The judgment of the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard and the principle of audi alteram partem. The grounds underlying the judgment introduced perspectives relevant to the decision which were not themselves discussed by the parties in the judicial proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).


title: Case C-429/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Siegfried Pohl v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (Request for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 45 TFEU — Directive 2000/78/EC — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — Determination of the reference date for the purposes of advancement on the salary scale — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Siegfried Pohl v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
   (Case C-429/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 45 TFEU - Directive 2000/78/EC - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - Determination of the reference date for the purposes of advancement on the salary scale - Limitation period - Principle of effectiveness)
   2014/C 85/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siegfried Pohl

      Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 6(3) TEU, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 45 TFEU and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Temporal scope — Period before accession — Remuneration of employees in the rail transport sector — National legislation and collective agreement excluding the taking into account of periods of employment completed before reaching the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration — Taking into account of half of the employee’s periods of employment completed after reaching the age of 18, except in the case of professional experience acquired with a ‘quasi-public’ national undertaking or with the national railway company — Limitation period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law, and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making the right of an employee to seek a reassessment of the periods of service which must be taken into account in order to fix the reference date for the purposes of advancement subject to a 30-year limitation period, which starts to run from the conclusion of the agreement on the basis of which that reference date was fixed or from the classification in an incorrect salary scale.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case T-438/03: Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin William Stephens against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/40                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.2.2004
4.    Infringement (in various respects) of Article 73 of Regu-             European Communities on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin
      lation No 1605 of 2002 and Article 32 of Council                      William Stephens, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
      Regulation (EC) No 1260 of 21 June 1999 (3), in that the              Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      Commission unlawfully retained the credit owed to the
      Regione Siciliana substantially after the time when a                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lawful and unexceptionable application for payment had
      been made.                                                            —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June                      applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
    2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget             him in Grade A6, Step 2, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
    of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 of 16.09.02, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of                     —     Annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing
    23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-                 authority of 4 September 2003, notified to the applicant
    tation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the                on 17 September 2003, rejecting complaint R/155/03;
    Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
    European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357 of 31.12.02, p. 1).                 —     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying                   ings.
    down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161
    of 26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
                                                                            C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered
                                                                            under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin William                        of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
Stephens against Commission of the European Communi-                        of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-
                                 ties                                       mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the
                                                                            applicant.
                          (Case T-438/03)
                                                                            In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
                           (2004/C 47/74)                                   additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the
                                                                            Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983
                   (Language of the case: French)                           on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
                                                                            classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations, and of the principle of equal treatment
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case C-173/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA) (Appeal — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Award criteria — Transparency — Objective assessment — Claim for damages)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA)
   (Case C-173/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Award criteria - Transparency - Objective assessment - Claim for damages))
   (2015/C 198/17)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellants: European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, G. Gavriilidou and C. Maignen, agents, H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-20/95)

text:
No C 74/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 3 . 95
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                             Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
                                                                     Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action admissible and well founded,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 5 April          1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
    1994 appointing the applicant to grade A7, step 5, and               SLOM I compensation for the period from 16 October
    the implicit refusal to appoint her to grade A6,                      1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 53 550,
                                                                         together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
— annul the implied decision rejecting the complaint                      1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
    submitted by the applicant on 4 July 1994, which was
    received in the Secretariat-General of the Commission            2 . joint the present action to that already pending in Case
    on 4 July 1994,                                                      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                         Commission and also stay the proceedings.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
The applicant, an official in grade A7, step 5 , contests the        Case T-20/94 .
decision of the appointing authority refusing to appoint her
to grade A6.
She pleads, first, an infringement of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations, and also contends that there has been a
manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that her
appointment takes into account neither her considerable
professional experience in the field in which she has been           Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger
established nor her significant intellectual and human               against Council of the European Union and Commission of
qualities.                                                                            the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-22/95 )
The applicant further asserts that Article 5 ( 3)of the Staff                                ( 95/C 74/32 )
Regulations and the principle of equality of treatment of
officials have been disregarded, inasmuch as she was
appointed to grade A7 whilst , other officials possessing                          (Language of the case: German)
qualifications and professional experience inferior to, or at
best equivalent to, her own were appointed to grade A6 in
the context of a recruitment competition based on tests or           An action against the Council of the European Union and
on qualifications and tests.                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger,
                                                                     Ampfing (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by
                                                                     Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
                                                                     Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                     Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau
against Council of the European Union and Commission of
                 the European Communities                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
                        (Case T-20/95 )
                          ( 95/C 74/31 )                             1 . order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant
                                                                         SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 April 1984
                                                                         to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 193 229 ,
              (Language of the case: German)                             together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as
                                                                         well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       3 663,43 ;
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau,               2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
Sontra-Lindenau (Federal Republic of Germany),                           T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,                      Commission and also stay the proceedings .


title: Case F-37/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — Ojamaa v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Appointing authority — Act adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/68

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — Ojamaa v Parliament
      (Case F-37/14) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Appointing authority - Act adversely affecting an official - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2014/C 395/83)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Priit Ojamaa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and N. Chemaï, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to allow 16 days of leave not taken in 2012 to be carried over to 2013, after the applicant had been on long-term sick leave for a serious illness.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Ojamaa is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 184 of 16/06/2014, p. 47.


title: Case C-315/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Angelo Grisoli v Regione Lombardia and Comune di Roccafranca

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Angelo Grisoli v Regione Lombardia and Comune di Roccafranca
   (Case C-315/08)
   (2008/C 260/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angelo Grisoli

      Defendant: Regione Lombardia
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on the European Union that there is a single pharmacy in communes with a population of less than 4 000 inhabitants?

               2.

               Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of the second pharmacy in communes with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as population over that amount of at least 50 per cent of the levels, distance of at least 3 000 metres from the existing pharmacy, and existence of particular requirements of the pharmacy service in relation to the topographical and road conditions, to be assessed by both the health units (local health companies) and the local association of pharmacists or in any event by the authorities competent for matters of organisation and review of the pharmacy service?


title: Case T-168/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/48

      Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA
      (Case T-168/10)
      (2010/C 161/76)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, Agent and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

         Defendant: Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (Millau, France)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the société d’économie mixte de l’Aveyron, in the person of its ad hoc agent, to pay the applicant the principal sum of EUR 41,012, plus interest outstanding since 10 March 1992 or, in the alternative, from 27 April 1993;

                  —

                  order the capitalisation of interest;

                  —

                  order the SEMEA to pay EUR 5 000 in respect of wrongful obstruction of legal process;

                  —

                  order the SEMEA to pay the costs of this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The European Community, represented by the Commission, concluded on 6 July 1990 with the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (the Aveyron semi-public installations company) (SEMEA) a grant contract concerning a local development action consisting in the performance of work for the preparation and launching of a Centre Européen d’Entreprise Locale (European Local Enterprise Centre) in Millau.
      The Commission claims that under that contract, the SEMEA undertook to perform various services and to account for them to the Commission by submitting periodical reports, the Commission for its part undertaking to contribute financially to the performance of those works up to a maximum of ECU 135,000, not exceeding 50 % of the justified costs of the works.
      In May 1991, the SEMEA requested from the Commission that that contract might be performed by another structure, the Association CEI12, which the Commission accepted, specifying that that agreement did not exempt the SEMEA from its obligations, and the SEMEA thus confirmed that it would guarantee the proper performance of the services provided for in the contract.
      Following a check on the state of progress of the works, it was found that the total eligible expenditure was ECU 187,977 and thus, that the Commission’s contribution was to be set at 50 % of that amount, that is, at ECU 93,988.
      In so far as the SEMEA has already received ECU 135,000 in respect of the contract, this action seeks to claim from the SEMEA the recovery of the overpayment.


title: Case C-469/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2015 by FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-655/11: FSL Holdings and others v European Commission

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/18

         Appeal brought on 4 September 2015 by FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-655/11: FSL Holdings and others v European Commission
   (Case C-469/15 P)
   (2015/C 389/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, C Verdonck, B. Van Vooren, J. Auwerx, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               In principal, set aside the judgment under appeal for use of evidence obtained in complete disregard of the procedure laid down for gathering it and for misapplication of the 2002 Leniency notice, and, consequently, annul the Commission’s decision of 12 October 2011 in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, partially set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that the General Court has not performed a full judicial review of the fine imposed on the Appellants and, as a result, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the Appellants by virtue of the judgment under appeal;

               —

               In the further alternative, to partially set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that the General Court has not correctly established that the infringement had as its object or effect the restriction of competition, and consequently, to refer the case back to the General Court, unless the Court considers that it is sufficiently well-informed to annul the Commission’s decision;

               —

               In any event, to order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants base their appeal on four grounds of appeal:

               —

               By the first ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law and infringed their rights of defence and the essential procedural requirements when rejecting the Appellants’ claim regarding the unlawfulness of the transfer of the documents gathered by the Italian tax authorities during a national tax investigation to the Commission, and the consequences of such unlawfulness. First, the General Court erred in law by ruling that the Commission does not have a distinct obligation under EU law to prevent the fundamental rights of defence from being irremediably compromised during the administrative phase of a competition inquiry. Second, the General Court erred in law by disregarding the Commission’s infringement of the Appellants’ rights of defence and essential procedural requirements as reflected in Article 12(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) Third, the General Court erred in law by distorting the clear meaning of the evidence before it, when it ruled that the unlawfulness of the acquisition of documents used in evidence by the Commission was irrelevant.

               —

               By the second ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by not criticising the Commission for granting immunity to the immunity applicant regarding Southern Europe and thus not consistently applying the 2002 Leniency Notice. More in particular, the Appellants claim that no immunity should have been granted to the immunity applicant regarding Southern Europe and, consequently, that all oral statements of the immunity applicant and information obtained following information requests based on these oral statements should have been removed from the file in the case at hand.

               —

               In the alternative, by the third ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law since it failed to provide effective judicial protection against a penalty of criminal nature imposed on them by the Commission, in spite of the unlimited jurisdiction imposed on it by Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter. By failing to provide such effective judicial protection, the Appellants further claim that the General Court has miscalculated the fine.

               —

               In the further alternative, by the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court has erred in law by misinterpreting the notion of an infringement by object, which in term has also led to an erroneous legal categorisation of the facts and a violation of the Appellants’ right of defence.

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


title: Case T-131/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission (Inland waterway transport — Community-fleet capacity — Conditions for putting new vessels into service ( ‘old for new’ rule) — Commission decision not to grant the specialised vessels exemption — Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission
   (Case T-131/07) (1)

   (Inland waterway transport - Community-fleet capacity - Conditions for putting new vessels into service (‘old for new’ rule) - Commission decision not to grant the specialised vessels exemption - Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999)
   2010/C 301/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt (Niederwalluf, Germany) (represented by: F. von Waldstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Simonsson, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG (2007) D/200972 of 28 February 2007 not to grant to the vessel ‘Niclas’ the specialised vessels exemption, pursuant to Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-225/09: Action brought on 8 June 2009 — CLARO v OHIM — Telefónica (Claro)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/61

         Action brought on 8 June 2009 — CLARO v OHIM — Telefónica (Claro)
   (Case T-225/09)
   2009/C 180/113
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: CLARO, SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009, in Case R 1079/2008-2, remit the case to that board for it to decide on it afresh, and order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: BCP S/A, now trading as CLARO, S.A., the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark containing the word element “CLARO” (application for registration No 5 229 241), for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Telefónica S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: earlier Community word mark “CLARO” (No 2 017 341), for, inter alia, goods and services in Classes 9 and 38.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible, since the applicant had not filed the relevant statement of grounds for the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of functional continuity between the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It argues that it was obvious that its appeal was against the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety, and that the appeal was based on the misinterpretation by the Opposition Division of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-38/14: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2015 — Kafetzakis and Others v Parliament and Others (Application for failure to act and for damages — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Harm resulting from the reduction of bonds provided as a redundancy payment — Statements of heads of State or governments of the Euro zone and of EU institutions — Statement of the Eurogroup — Lack of substantiation of causality with the alleged harm — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/56

         Order of the General Court of 5 October 2015 — Kafetzakis and Others v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-38/14) (1)

   ((Application for failure to act and for damages - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Harm resulting from the reduction of bonds provided as a redundancy payment - Statements of heads of State or governments of the Euro zone and of EU institutions - Statement of the Eurogroup - Lack of substantiation of causality with the alleged harm - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 389/63)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Georgios Kafetzakis (Athens, Greece) and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to the order (represented by: C. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); European Council; Eurogroup; Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, M. Balta and E. Dumitriu Segnana, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. P. Keppenne and B. Smulders, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: P. Papapaschalis and P. Senkovic, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to adopt the necessary legislative measures for ensuring that the bonds held by the applicants as employees made redundant by Olympiaki Aeroporia would not be affected by the private sector involvement in the debt relief programme plan (PSI), reducing the value of Greek State debt, and (ii) damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants resulting from that unlawful failure to act.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr. Georgios Kafetzakis and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case F-120/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Curdt-Christiansen v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Article 7(3) and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Fixing of the place of origin and the centre of interests — Request for revision of the place of origin — Concept of centre of interests — Change of residence of a family member — Period elapsed between the amendment of the centre of interests and the request for revision of the place of origin — Exceptional nature of the revision)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Curdt-Christiansen v Parliament
   (Case F-120/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Annual travel expenses - Article 7(3) and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Fixing of the place of origin and the centre of interests - Request for revision of the place of origin - Concept of centre of interests - Change of residence of a family member - Period elapsed between the amendment of the centre of interests and the request for revision of the place of origin - Exceptional nature of the revision))
   (2015/C 262/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Caspar Curdt-Christiansen (Perl, Germany) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and N. Chemaï, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament rejecting the applicant’s request that his place of origin be changed to Larnaca (Cyprus) and the centre of his interests to Singapore, instead of Montreal (Canada), following his transfer to the European Parliament.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Curdt-Christiansen to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 57.


title: Case C-192/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht lodged on  21 April 2006  — Matthias Kruck v Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht lodged on 21 April 2006 — Matthias Kruck v Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark
   (Case C-192/06)
   (2006/C 154/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Matthias Kruck

      Defendant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark
   Question referred
   Is Article 9(2) to (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1648/95. (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the maximum area to be considered for compensatory payments for set-aside in accordance with the second and fourth sentences of Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2989/95, (3) should be calculated on the basis of the area applied for or the area actually determined?

      (1)  AB1.l 391, S.36

      (2)  AB1.156, S.27

      (3)  AB1.L 312, S.5


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 18 July 1995, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against DFDS A/S (Case C-260/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 248/9
1956 be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of                Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 1 8 July 1 995 , which was
Article 95 of the EC Treaty in relation to vehicles for which           received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1995 , for a
type-approval was given after the Treaty entered into force             preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
and before 1 January 1978 ?                                             Customs and Excise against DFDS A/S, on the following
                                                                        questions :
                                                                        on the proper interpretation of Council Directive
                                                                        77/388/EC (') on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European                    Member States relating to turnover tax ( the Sixth VAT
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union                 Directive ), and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour
                                                                        operator has its headquarters in Member State A but
                        ( Case C-259/95
                                                                        supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers
                           ( 95/C 248/ 18                               through the agency of a company in Member State B:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 ( a ) in what ( if any ) circumstances is the supply of those
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           . services by the tour operator taxable in Member
Communities on 2 August 1995 by the European                                    State B ?
Parliament, represented by Christian Pennera , Head of
Division in its Legal Service, and Peter Dyrberg, of the Legal          ( b ) in what ( if any ) circumstances can it be said that the
Service , acting as agents, with an address for service in                      tour operator 'has established [its] business' in Member
Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the European Parliament,                       State B or ' has a fixed establishment from which [it] has
Tower Building, Kirchberg.                                                      provided the services' in Member State B ?
The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                  (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( Sixth Council Directive ) of
                                                                              17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
— annul Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May                              States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
     1995 (') amending Decision No 3092/94/EC                                 added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 .
     introducing a Community system of information on                         1977, p. 1 ).
     home and leisure accidents,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Lack of legal basis :                                                   Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against the Federal Republic of
— the reference to Article 169 of the 1994 Act of Accession                                              Germany
     is inappropriate in this case because that provision does                                      ( Case C-262/95 )
     not permit legislative amendments to be made after the                                           ( 95/C 248/20 )
     entry into force of the Accession Treaty on 1 January
     1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
— Article 169 of the Act of Accession cannot permit the                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     Council unilaterally to amend and modify an act jointly             Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
     adopted by the Parliament and the Council in                       European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     accordance with Article 189b of the EC Treaty . To apply           Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     it in the manner in which the Council did in adopting the          the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 ,
     contested Decision effectively undermines the                      Kirchberg.
     paramountcy of the EC Treaty and disregards the rule
     laid down in Article 9 of the Act of Accession .                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
 (') OJ No L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p . 36 .                               ( 1 ) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                time-limits all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                                comply with the following Directives, in particular
                                                                                Article 3 of each of them, the Ferderal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                         Treaty:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 18 July 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of Customs                      — Council Directive 82/176/EEC (*) of 22 March
                 and Excise against DFDS A/S                                         1982 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                                mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis
                         ( Case C-260/95 )
                                                                                industry,
                            ( 95/C 248/ 19 )
                                                                                — Council Directive 83/513/EEC ( 2 ) of 26 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1983 on limit values and quality objectives for
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                               cadmium discharges,


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-301/99 P: Area Cova SA and Others v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Fisheries — Measures to conserve resources — Quota for catches of Greenland halibut granted to the Community fleet — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/33
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     1.    The appeals are dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Area Cova and others and the Xunta de Galicia are to pay the
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                costs.
                        of 1 February 2001
                                                                           (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999; OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
in Joined Cases C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P: Area Cova
SA and Others v Council of the European Union and
                             Others (1)
(Appeal — Fisheries — Measures to conserve resources —
Community fishing quota for Greenland halibut — Appeal
partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
                            unfounded)                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (2001/C 200/59)                                                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 1 February 2001
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           in Case C-301/99 P: Area Cova SA and Others v Council
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published                         of the European Union (1)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Appeal — Fisheries — Measures to conserve resources —
In Joined Cases C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P: Area Cova                       Quota for catches of Greenland halibut granted to the
SA, established in Vigo (Spain), Armadora José Pereira SA,                 Community fleet — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible
established in Vigo, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán SA,                                    and in part manifestly unfounded)
established in Vigo, Centropesca SA, established in Vigo,
Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar SA, established in
                                                                                (2001/C 200/60)
Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established in Bueu (Spain),
Farpespan SL, established in Moaña (Spain), Freiremar SA,
established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandón SA, established in
Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo, Hiopesca SA,                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA, established in Vigo,
Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Vigo, Manuel Nores González,
residing in Marı́n (Spain), Moradiña SA, established in Cangas,           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in Camariñas (Spain), Nugago                               in the European Court Reports)
Pesca SA, established in Bueu, Pesquera Austral SA, established
in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA, established in Vigo, Pesquerı́as Bigaro           In Case 301/99 P: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
Narval SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Cı́es SA, established             Armadora José Pereira SA, established in Vigo, Armadores
in Vigo, Pesca Herculina SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera                 Pesqueros de Aldán SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA,
Inter SA, established in Cangas, Pesquerı́as Marinenses SA,                established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar
established in Marı́n, Pesquerı́as Tara SA, established in Cangas,         SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established
Pesquera Vaqueiro SA, established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA,                 in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SL, established in Moaña (Spain),
established in Vigo, represented by A. Creus Carreras, E. Con-             Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandón SA,
treras Ynzenga and A. Agustinoy Guilayn, abogados, and                     established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo,
Xunta de Galicia, represented by V.M. Vázquez-Portomeñe                  Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA,
Seijas, abogado — two appeals against the order of the                     established in Vigo, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Marı́n (Spain),
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third                 Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Moradiña SA,
Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case T-194/95 Area Cova and                     established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in
Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2271, seeking to have that                  Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu,
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the            Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA,
Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and                      established in Vigo, Pesquerı́as Bı́garo Narval SA, established
G. Ramos Ruano), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de                      in Vigo, Pesquera Cı́es SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina
Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), estab-                   SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in
lished in Vigo, Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques                Cangas, Pesquerı́as Marinenses SA, established in Marı́n, Pes-
Congeladores de Pesquerı́as Varias (Anavar), established in                querı́as Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA,
Vigo, and Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas                   established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo,
(ASPE), established in Vigo — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                  represented by A. Creus Carreras, E. Contreras Ynzenga and A.
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                      Agustinoy Guilayn, abogados — appeal against the order
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;                  made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made               First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/96
an order on 1 February 2000, the operative part of which is as             Area Cova S.A. and Others v Council and Commission [1999]
follows:                                                                   ECR II-2301, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
parties to the proceedings being Council of the European                   1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Union (Agents: J. Carbery and G. Ramos Ruano), Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and                       2.    Mr Peter Reichert is ordered to pay the costs.
J. Guerra Fernández), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de
Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), estab-                   (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
lished in Vigo, Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques
Congeladores de Pesquerı́as Varias (Anavar), established in
Vigo, and Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas
(ASPE), established in Vigo — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of A. La Pergola, President of Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
follows:
                                                                                of 23 February 2001
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    Area Cova and Others shall pay the costs.                            in Case C-445/00 R: Republic of Austria v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                           (Applications for interim measures — System of ecopoints
                                                                           for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria —
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 — Suspension of application
                                                                                — Urgency)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/62)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                        of 8 February 2001                                                     in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-238/00 P: Peter Reichert v European Parlia-                      In Case C-445/00 R: Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi) v
                               ment (1)                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino and
                                                                           G. Houttuin), supported by Federal Republic of Germany
(Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations               (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig)
— Expatriation allowance — Place where the main pro-                       and by Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
fessional activity is pursued — Appeal manifestly                          M. Wolfcarius and C. Schmidt) — application for suspension
                             unfounded)                                    of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of
                                                                           21 September 2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to
                          (2001/C 200/61)                                  the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94
                                                                           with regard to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods
                                                                           vehicles transiting through Austria (OJ 2000 L 241, p. 18),
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and for interim measures — the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice made an order on 23 February 2001, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           1.    The application of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                No 2012/2000 of 21 September 2000 amending Annex 4
                                                                                to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation
In Case 238/00 P: Peter Reichert, member of the temporary                        (EC) No 3298/94 with regard to the system of ecopoints for
staff of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament,                         heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria is suspended
represented by D. Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt — appeal against the                     pending delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings.
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities, Single Judge, of 13 April 2000, in Case T-18/98               2.    The remainder of this application is dismissed.
Reichert v Parliament [2000] ECR II-309, seeking to have that
                                                                           3.    Costs are reserved.
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
European Parliament (Agents: Y. Pantalis and M. Berger) — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of               (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
18 February 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-548/10: Action brought on 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/27

         Action brought on 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-548/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and C. Egerer, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The Commission requests the Court:

               —

               to declare that, by failing to notify in full the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), or by failing fully to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               to order the Republic of Austria pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 15 may 2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 17 January 2002 in Case T-47/00: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2423/99 — Safeguard measures — Application for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
4.5.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/43
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        30 January 2002
                                                                                17 January 2002
in Cases T-54/99: max.mobil Telekommunikation Service
  GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      in Case T-47/00: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) —
Amount of fees charged by the Republic of Austria to
operators of GSM networks — Complaint — Partial rejec-                   (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and
tion of the complaint — Admissibility — Infringement of                  territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar
Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) and                      and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2423/99 — Safeguard
     Article 90 of the EC Treaty — Statement of reasons)                   measures — Application for annulment — Admissibility)
                         (2002/C 109/85)                                                          (2002/C 109/86)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-54/99, max.mobil Telekommunikation Service
GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by S. Köck,
M. Pflügl, M. Esser-Wellié and M. Oder, lawyers, with an                 In Case T-47/00, Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, established in
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                   Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat,
European Communities (agents: W. Mölls and K. Wiedner),                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by
supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (agents:                         Kingdom of the Netherlands (agent: H. Sevenster), v Com-
M. A Fierstra and J. van Bakel and H.G. Sevenster): Application          mission of the European Communities (agents: T. van Rijn and
for partial annulment of Commission Decision No IV-C1/ROK                C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain (agent:
D(98) of 11 December 1998 in so far as it rejects the                    N. Dı́az Abad): Application for annulment of Commission
applicant’s complaint alleging that the Republic of Austria              Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of 15 November 1999 introd-
infringed Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now                    ucing safeguard measures in respect of sugar falling within CN
Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) when determining the amount                 code 1701 and mixtures of sugar and cocoa falling within CN
of the fee payable for the grant of a GSM concession, Court of           codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,              countries and territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11), Court of First
Extended Composition), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President,              Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber),
K. Lenaerts, M. Jaeger, J. Pirrung and N.J. Forwood, Judges;             composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002,             Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, Registrar, has given a
in which it:                                                             judgment on 17 January 2002, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                         1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of     2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and also those
      the Commission;                                                          incurred by the Commission;
3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.        3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                               (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case F-96/09: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/54

         Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission
   (Case F-96/09)
   2010/C 148/95
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Díez Lorenzo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions not to admit the applicant to the oral test of Open Competition EPSO/AD/130/08 and to deny access to the corrected written tests and annulment with retroactive effect of the reserve list published for the appointment of Lawyer linguists having Spanish as their main language.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 14 September 2009 by which EPSO refused to send the applicant a copy of her written tests and an individual assessment sheet, in which were indicated the grounds which caused the selection board to award her the eliminatory mark of 18/40 in the final written test (c), and disregarded her application for admission to the oral test of Open Competition AD/130/08;

               —

               annul the decision of 23 July 2009 by which EPSO stated that it was maintaining the eliminatory mark of 18/40 in the last written test (c) and refused the applicant admission to the oral test of Open Competition EPSO/AD/130/08 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list for the appointment of Lawyer linguists having Spanish as their main language;

               —

               annul the reserve list published following the competition with retroactive effect from the date of publication thereof;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-588/14: Action brought on 8 August 2014  — Mechadyne International v OHIM (FlexValve)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/16

         Action brought on 8 August 2014 — Mechadyne International v OHIM (FlexValve)
   (Case T-588/14)
   2014/C 361/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mechadyne International Ltd (Kirtlington, United Kingdom) (represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen and E. Schaper, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2014 in Case R 2435/2013-4;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘FlexValve’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 12 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 1 2 74  677

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the right to be heard;

               —

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

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  8 December 2005  in Case C-38/05: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system within the fisheries sector — Information on types and quantities of fish landed and on fishing effort)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 8 December 2005
   in Case C-38/05: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Control system within the fisheries sector - Information on types and quantities of fish landed and on fishing effort)
   (2006/C 36/31)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-38/05, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Doherty) v Ireland (Agent: D.J. O'Hagan, assisted by A. Schuster and E. Fannon, Barristers) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 February 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate the data required under Articles 15(4) and 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 of 18 December 1997, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2003 in Case T-257/01, Frosch Touristik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settlement — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 239/8                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            4.10.2003
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 3 July 2003                                                                of 3 July 2003
in Case T-257/01, Frosch Touristik GmbH v Office for                         in Case T-34/03: André Hecq and Syndicat des Fonction-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                        naires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE) v Commission
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                                 of the European Communities ( 1)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-                        (Formal inadmissibility of the application — Legal person
                  ment — No need to adjudicate)                                  governed by private law — Instructions given to lawyer)
                          (2003/C 239/10)                                                               (2003/C 239/11)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-257/01: Frosch Touristik GmbH, established in
Munich (Germany), represented by G. Zeiner and B. Heaman-                    In Case T-34/03: André Hecq, official of the Commission,
Dunn, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg v                   residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), and Syndicat des
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                 fonctionnaires internationaux et européen (SFIE), established
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the intervener                    in Brussels (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, against
before the Court of First Instance being Air Marin Flugreisen                Commission of the European Communities — application for
GmbH, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by C. Don-                  annulment of the decision of the Commission of 4 October
le, lawyer — Action brought against the decision of the Office               2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr André Hecq, acting
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                    in his own name and in his capacity as Secretary-General of
Designs) of 31 July 2001 (Case R 789/1999-2) relating to                     the SFIE union against the decisions of the Commission laying
opposition proceedings between Frosch Touristik GmbH and                     down the rules on resources available to staff representatives
Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH — the Court of First Instance                      from 1 January 2002 and against the decision on the budgetary
(Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President and P. Men-                resources to be allocated to the SFIE union led by Mr Hecq and
gozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
order on 3 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:             composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and
                                                                             J. D. Cooke, judges; H. Jung, registrar, has given an order on
                                                                             3 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
1)    There is no further need to adjudicate in this action;
                                                                             1.     The action is inadmissible insofar as it is brought by the
2)    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Office;               Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens (SFIE).
3)    The intervener shall bear its own costs.                               2.     The SFIE shall bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.                                                       (1 ) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-534/08: Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/55

         Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)
   (Case T-534/08)
   (2009/C 44/96)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Granuband BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ellens, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft (Budapest, Hungary)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, or at least review, the decision of OHIM of 15 September 2008, served on 24 September 2008, on grounds of infringement of the provisions of Article 52(1), in conjunction with Article 8(4), of Regulation No 40/94, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark GRANUFLEX for goods in Classes 17, 19 and 27 — Community Trade Mark No 943118

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Granuband BV

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft.

      Trade-mark right of applicant for the declaration of invalidity: commercial designation GRANUFLEX for goods and services in Classes 17, 19, 27 and 37

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration that the Community trade mark is invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant

      Pleas in law: breach of Articles 52(1)(c) and 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-488/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito v Jahani BV (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis — Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair — Penalty clause — Annulment of the clause)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito v Jahani BV
   (Case C-488/11) (1)

   (Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis - Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair - Penalty clause - Annulment of the clause)
   2013/C 225/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina de Man Garabito

      Defendant: Jahani BV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis — Classification of the landlord as a seller of goods or a supplier of services — Rules of public policy

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions set out by national law, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain, it applies to a residential tenancy agreement concluded between a landlord acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession and a tenant acting for purposes which do not relate to his trade, business or profession.

               2.

               Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           where a national court, before which an action has been brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer concerning the performance of a contract, has the power, under internal procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national rules of public policy, it must, in the same way, where it has established that that term falls within the scope of that directive, assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair in the light of the criteria laid down in that directive;

                           —

                           where the national court has the power, under internal procedural rules, to annul of its own motion a term which is contrary to public policy or to a mandatory statutory provision the scope of which warrants such a sanction, it must, as a rule, after having invited each of the parties to set out its views on that matter, with the opportunity to challenge the views of the other party, annul of its own motion a contractual term which it has found to be unfair in the light of the criteria laid down by that directive.

               3.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the national court, in the case where it has established that a penalty clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, merely, as it is authorised by national law, to reduce the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer by that clause, but requires it to exclude the application of that clause in its entirety with regard to the consumer.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case C-333/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/31

         Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-333/06)
   (2006/C 224/58)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.R. Vidal Puig and K. Simonsson, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to lay down the sanctions for infringements of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 16(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 requires the Member States to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for infringements of the provisions of the regulation.
   According to the information available to the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden — by failing to lay down sanctions for infringements of the provisions of Article 14 of the regulation and nearly one and a half years after its entry into force — has not yet introduced a complete system of sanctions for infringements of the regulation.

      (1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.


title: Case C-412/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Article 14(2) — Independence of the body to which the exercise of essential functions is entrusted)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-412/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Independence of the body to which the exercise of essential functions is entrusted)
   2013/C 252/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1), and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Failure to ensure the independence of essential functions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.