title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 26 November 1998 in Case C-370/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis): Covita AVE v. Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 - Countervailing charge on cherries originating in Bulgaria - Entry in the accounts - Post-clearance recovery)

text:
C 20/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
In so far as he has available a job with the same employer,          State and operates the only nationwide newspaper
a Turkish national in that situation is thus entitled to             home-delivery scheme in that Member State to allow the
demand the renewal of his residence permit in the host               publisher of a rival newspaper, which by reason of its
Member State, even if, pursuant to the legislation of that           small circulation is unable either alone or in cooperation
Member State, the activity pursued by him was restricted             with other publishers to set up and operate its own
to a limited group of persons, was intended to facilitate            home-delivery scheme in economically reasonable
their integration into working life and was financed by              conditions, to have access to that scheme for appropriate
public funds.                                                        remuneration does not constitute the abuse of a dominant
                                                                     position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty.
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                    of 26 November 1998
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-7/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Oscar Bronner GmbH &                                           (Second Chamber)
Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag
GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebs-                                             of 26 November 1998
gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint
          Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                     in Case C-370/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Article 86 of the EC Treaty Ð Abuse of a dominant                   the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis): Covita AVE v. Elliniko
position Ð Refusal of a media undertaking holding a                                     Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
dominant position in the territory of a Member State to
include a rival daily newspaper of another undertaking in            (Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 Ð Countervailing charge
the same Member State in its newspaper home-delivery                 on cherries originating in Bulgaria Ð Entry in the
                            scheme)                                              accounts Ð Post-clearance recovery)
                        (1999/C 20/12)                                                        (1999/C 20/13)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-7/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs-
und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint
Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and                       In Case C-370/96, reference to the Court under Article 177
Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG Ð for a                 of the EC Treaty by the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis
preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 86 of            (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                  pending before that court between Covita AVE and
of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J. L.                Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) Ð on the interpretation of
Murray, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and                  Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate-General: F. G. Jacobs;               2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or
Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a          export duties (OJ L 175, 12.7.1979, p. 1), Article 5(2) of
judgment on 26 November 1998, in which it has ruled:                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on
                                                                     the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export
                                                                     duties which have not been required of the person liable
The refusal by a press undertaking which holds a very                for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
large share of the daily newspaper market in a Member                involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ L 197,
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/9
3.8.1979, p. 1), Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the
accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the                                    of 1 December 1998
import duties or export duties resulting from a customs
debt (OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 1), and of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 of 22 June 1992                        in Case C-326/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
introducing a countervailing charge on cherries originating        the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London: B. S. Levez v.
in Bulgaria (OJ L 168, 23.6.1992, p. 18) Ð the Court                          T. H. Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (1)
(Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),
President of Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen,              (Social policy Ð Men and women Ð Equal pay Ð
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                 Article 119 of the EC Treaty Ð Directive 75/117/EEC Ð
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Remedies for breach of the prohibition on discrimination
26 November 1998 in which it has ruled:                            Ð Pay arrears Ð Domestic legislation placing a two-year
                                                                   limit on awards for the period prior to the institution of
                                                                             proceedings Ð Similar domestic actions)
1. The countervailing charge imposed by Commission                                        (1999/C 20/14)
    Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 of 22 June 1992
    introducing a countervailing charge on cherries
    originating in Bulgaria also applies to cherries
    intended for industrial processing.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. A trader who has accumulated some experience of
    import and export transactions and who is aware, in
    particular, of the imminent risk of a countervailing
    charge being introduced cannot, if that charge is
    actually introduced, benefit from the provisions of
    Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79            In Case C-326/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of              of the EC Treaty by the Employment Appeal Tribunal,
    import duties or export duties which have not been             London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    required of the person liable for payment on goods             pending before that court between B. S. Levez and T. H.
    entered for a customs procedure involving the                  Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd Ð on the interpretation of
    obligation to pay such duties or of Article 13 of              Article 119 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 2 and 6 of
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979             Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
    on the repayment or remission of import or export              approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
    duties if he could have informed himself as to the             to the application of the principle of equal pay for men
    actual introduction of the charge by consulting the            and women (OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19) Ð the Court,
    Official Journal of the European Communities and               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.
    failed to do so.                                               Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
                                                                   Chambers, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                   Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                   R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger,
                                                                   Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
3. Failure to observe the time-limits laid down in                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December
    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC)                   1998 in which it has ruled:
    No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the
    accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the
    import duties or export duties resulting from a
    customs debt does not nullify the right of competent
    customs authorities to proceed with the post-clearance
    recovery of customs duties, provided that it is carried
    out within the time-limit laid down in Article 2(1) of         1. Community law precludes the application of a rule of
    Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79.                                       national law which limits an employee's entitlement to
                                                                       arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the
                                                                       principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                                 to the date on which the proceedings were instituted,
                                                                       there being no possibility of extending that period,
                                                                       where the delay in bringing a claim is attributable to
                                                                       the fact that the employer deliberately misrepresented
                                                                       to the employee the level of remuneration received by
                                                                       persons of the opposite sex performing like work.


title: Case T-411/09: Action brought on 13 October 2009 — Terezakis v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/35

         Action brought on 13 October 2009 — Terezakis v Commission
   (Case T-411/09)
   2009/C 312/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (represented by: B. Lombart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision in the form of a letter dated 3 August 2009 received by the applicant on 10 August 2009, refusing to disclose to the latter some parts and the annexes of certain letters exchanged between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Greek Ministry of Finances regarding possible tax irregularities in connexion with the construction of Spata airport in Athens, Greece,

               —

               order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings, be borne by the respondent.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2009 which was notified to the applicant on 10 August 2009 refusing to disclose to the latter some parts and the annexes of certain letters exchanged between the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Greek Ministry of Finances regarding possible tax irregularities in connexion with the construction of the Athens international airport at Spata, on the basis of the following grounds.
   The applicant claims, first, that the contested decision suffers from a manifest error in law and an error in the appreciation of facts insofar as the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The applicant submits that the Commission merely invoked the exception to public access relating to the need to protect the commercial secrets in the abstract, in order to refuse the disclosure of certain parts of the documents concerned, without pleading specific grounds pertaining to the risk of effectively undermining the protection of commercial interests of the undertakings involved.
   The applicant moreover submits that the Commission violated Article 1 of the abovementioned Regulation and the principle of widest possible access to documents held by the Commission set out in paragraph (a) of this Article as well as the case law of Community Courts.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of law by failing to inform the applicant of the grounds on which it based its decision. It is submitted that the Commission violated the obligation to state reasons enshrined in Article 253 EC by simply referring to the exceptions of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in order to refuse the requested access.
   Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission wrongly concluded that the annexes to the letters to which the applicant requested access were in the applicant’s possession, departing from an erroneous interpretation that the documents requested were identical to those held by the applicant. Hence, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in law insofar as the Commission abstained to apply the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and in particular, its Article 4.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)


title: Case F-37/14: Action brought on 20 April 2014  — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/47

         Action brought on 20 April 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-37/14)
   2014/C 184/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament not to allow him to carry over 16 days leave not taken in 2012 to 2013 after the applicant had been on long-term sick leave as a result of a serious illness.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision refusing to carry over the applicant’s leave, beyond the limit of 12 days, from 2012 to 2013;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 January 2014 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-365/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Reimbursement of import duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) — Article 241, first paragraph, first indent — Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-365/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Reimbursement of import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) - Article 241, first paragraph, first indent - Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts))
   (2017/C 070/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where import duties, including anti-dumping duties, are reimbursed on the ground that they have been levied in breach of EU law, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, there is an obligation on Member States, arising from EU law, to pay to individuals with a right to reimbursement the corresponding interest which runs from the date of payment by those individuals of the duties reimbursed.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case C-312/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary lodged on 18 July 2006 — OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt. v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary lodged on 18 July 2006 — OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt. v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   (Case C-312/06)
   (2006/C 237/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt.

      Defendant: Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (1) (‘the Act of Accession’), which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local government for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of Act C of 1990 on Local Taxes, be interpreted as meaning that it concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to maintain the tax on economic activities, that is to say, as meaning that the Treaty of Accession, in contemplating the possibility of maintaining the tax reductions relating to the tax on economic activities, recognised that Hungary has the temporary right to maintain a tax of the same type as the tax on economic activities?

               2.

               Must Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) (‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the maintenance of a tax (the local tax on economic activities) on profit-making business activities which is fundamentally characterised by the fact that it is imposed in respect of net receipts, after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw materials? That is to say, with reference to that article, may a tax with those characteristics be classified as a turnover tax?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.

      (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0002

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court) of 22 February 2000 in the case of Allied Colloids, and others v. The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (Case E-2/00)

Official Journal C 130 , 11/05/2000 P. 0012 - 0012

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court) of 22 February 2000 in the case of Allied Colloids, and others v. The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development(Case E-2/00)(2000/C 130/12)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 February 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Allied Colloids, and others v. The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, on the following question:Does the Joint Statement adopted at the meeting of EEA Joint Committee of 22 June 1995 concerning Annex II Chapter XV, Annex II with subsequent amendments, to the EEA Agreement give Norway the power to introduce a labelling requirement for polyacrylamide that contains a concentration of the residual substance acrylamide which is lower than 0,1 %, see Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 with subsequent amendments and Council Directive 88/379/EEC of 7 June 1988, with subsequent amendments?


title: Action brought on 2 April 1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-84/97)

text:
No C 181 / 16        EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 26 March 1997 by Monsanto Europe                    The applicant claims the Commission decision should be
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                 annulled on the following grounds.
                        ( Case T-71 /97 )
                                                                      First, the Commission failed to comply with the proper
                          ( 97/C 181 /31 )                            Community procedure for setting MRLs when it rejected
                                                                      the applicant's case for inclusion of Sometribove in one of
               (Language of the case: English)                        the Annexes to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 .
                                                                      Second, in making its decision the Commission in fact
An action against the Commission of the European                      acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     moratorium . In particular, the decision prevents the
Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 1997                 applicant from conducting limited practical tests on the
by Monsanto Europe SA, represented by Clive Stanbrook                 effects of BST products .
QC and Robert MacLean, of Stanbrook and Hooper,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            Third, in arriving at its decision the Commission acted in
offices of Arsene Kronshagen , 22, rue Marie-Adelaide .               breach of the principle of legal certainty, infringing the
                                                                      applicant's legitimate expectation that the conditions for
                                                                      the granting of an MRL would be based on a scientific
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          assessment of the product.
— annul the Commission decision of 14 January 1997                    Fourth, the Commission infringed the principle of
    concerning a definition of a position, in accordance              proportionality in adopting the present decision . The
    with Article 175 of the EC Treaty, on the referral of             interference in the applicant's commercial activities by the
     the applicant's application to the Committee for                 Commission 's decision is disproportionate to any benefit
     Adaptation to Technical Progress and on the inclusion            that might be achieved by refusing to approve the product
                                                                      under one of the Annexes mentioned above .
     of bovine somatotrophin in Annex II of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90,
                                                                      Fifth, the Commission misused its powers by basing its
                                                                      decision on irrelevant considerations and motives of a
— order the Commission to pay damages, and                            political nature .
                                                                      Finally, the Commission 's decision infringes a number of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              agreements approved by the European Community under
                                                                      the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of multilateral
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   trade negotiations. The Commission's decision is itself
                                                                      incompatible with the terms of the GATT 1994 and
                                                                      the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
The applicant, a Belgian company, has developed a                     Phytosanitary Measures .
veterinary medicinal product called Sometribove which is
classified as a recombinant bovine somatotrophin ( BST ).
Prior to marketing this product, the applicant was
required to obtain a marketing authorization from the EC
Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP ).
Before such an authorization was obtained, Council                    Action brought on 2 April 1997 by the European Office
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 was adopted establishing a              of Consumer Unions ( BEUC ) against the Commission of
Community procedure for the setting of minimum residue                                   the European Communities
limits ( MRLs ) for veterinary medicinal products in                                           ( Case T-84/97 )
foodstuffs of animal origin .
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /32 )
After the adoption of that Regulation, it became necessary                           (Language of the case: English)
for the applicant to obtain a listing of Sometribove under
one of the Annexes to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/             An action against the Commission of the European
90 before a marketing authorization could be approved .               Communities was brought before the Court of Instance of
An application for an MRL was made by the applicant                   the European Communities on 2 April 1997 by the
through the procedure established under Council                       European Office of Consumer Unions ( BEUC ), represented
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 . By decision of 14 January             by Bernard O'Connor, member of the Law Society of
1997 the Commission rejected the applicant's request that             Ireland, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
its case should be referred to the Committee for the                  offices of Arsene Kronshagen, 22, Rue Marie Adelaide .
Adaptation to Technical Progress on the grounds that by
virtue of Council Decision 94/936/EC the marketing and                The applicant claims that the Court should :
administration of BST to dairy cows could not be
authorized and that, therefore, the applicant had no                  — declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
interest in obtaining an MRL . The moratorium introduced                   EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission addressed
by Council Decision 94/936/EC was the principal ground                     to the applicant contained in a letter dated 3 February
for the Commission arriving at its decision .                              1997, refusing to consider the applicant as an
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 181 / 17
     ' interested party' in relation to all aspects of an anti        The contested decision appears to be based solely on
     dumping proceeding concerning imports of unbleached               Article 6 ( 12 ) of the International GATT Anti-dumping
     cotton fabrics, originating in the People 's Republic of          Code. This justification is irrelevant to the applicant's
     China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey               rights under Community law and constitutes a
     and not allowing the applicant to inspect the                     misinterpretation of the Anti-dumping Code itself. The
     Commission        non-confidential      documents       and       applicant's request is based in fact on the clear wording of
     information made available by all the parties in that             the EC anti-dumping regulations and not the GATT
     proceeding,                                                       provisions . It is true that consumer associations are in
                                                                       principle not included in the list of ' interested parties' set
                                                                       out in the GATT rules . However, this list does not
— declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, the decision contained in the same letter, in          preclude GATT Members from allowing other parties to
     so far as that decision refuses to allow the applicant            become interested parties . The EC has in fact made use of
     and other consumer organizations to have access to                this possibility Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 . Articles 6 and
     the non-confidential information made available in an             21 of that Regulation should therefore be regarded as
     anti-dumping proceeding dealing with products non                constituting a correct implementation of GATT rules as
     commonly sold at a retail level,                                  regards access of consumer organizations to non
                                                                       confidential information in relation to all elements of anti
                                                                       dumping proceedings, including dumping, injury and
— make any additional orders which the Court considers                 causality.
     necessary, and
                                                                       (') Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 , of 22 December 1995 , on
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                             protection against dumped imports from Countries not
                                                                           Members of the European Community ( OJ No L 56 , 6 . 3 .
     proceedings .                                                         1996 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant in the present case, a representative
international consumer organization whose object is the
promotion of the interest of consumers in relation to the              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Rea Apostilidis against
policies of the European Union and the representation of                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities
consumer organizations, challenges the decision of the                                         ( Case T-86./97 )
Commission not to recognize it as an interested party, and
not to allow it to have access to all non-confidential                                           ( 97/C 181 /33 )
documents and information made available in an anti
dumping proceeding concerning imports of unbleached                                    (Language of the case: French)
cotton fabrics, originating in the People 's Republic of
China, Egypt, India , Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey and               An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in any other anti-dumping proceeding dealing with                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
products non-commonly sold at a retail level . According               Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
to the applicant, the Commission justifies its decision on             by Rea Apostilidis, residing at Bereldange ( Luxembourg ),
the basis of the premise that the GATT Anti-dumping                    represented by Alain Levy, of the Paris Bar, with an
Code allows consumers the opportunity to provide                       address for service in Luxembourg care of the applicant,
information on dumping, injury and causality only ' in                 46 Route de Luxembourg, Bereldange .
cases where the product is commonly sold at the retail
level '.                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims to be an interested party on the basis            — annul the contested decisions,
of Council Regulation No 384/96 (').
                                                                       — order the destruction of the documents contained in
                                                                            the parallel file,
It claims first of all that Article 6 ( 7) and Article 21 of
that regulation recognize consumer associations as
interested parties and grant them the opportunity to access            — order the Court of Justice to pay her compensation in
                                                                            the    sum  of Bfrs     1 000 000     for the non-material
the non-confidential files of the proceeding. The regulation
should not limit the right of consumer organizations to                     damage suffered by her,
participate fully in anti-dumping proceedings to 'products
commonly sold at retail level'. It submits, therefore, that            — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
although this particular proceeding does concern products
which are not commonly sold at retail level , it should                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
have the        opportunity to have      access to the non
confidential     file in   relation  to  all  elements    of  the      The applicant, a grade A 6 official, contests the decision
proceeding. Should this not be the case, a representative              of the appointing authority to suspend the procedure for
consumer organization would not be able to participate                 filling one of the three posts of principal administrator
fully in the evaluation of the Community interest in any                advertised in Vacancy Notice No CJ 91 /95 , for which she
particular anti-dumping investigation .                                 had applied, as well as the decision rejecting the complaint


title: Case C-328/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Gimv Nederland BV

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Gimv Nederland BV
   (Case C-328/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 133/38
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-359/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de Teramo by decision of that court of 31 July 2004 in the case of criminal proceedings against Christian Palazzese

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de Teramo by decision of that court of 31 July 2004 in the case of criminal proceedings against Christian Palazzese
   (Case C-359/04)
   (2004/C 262/34)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale de Teramo (Italy) of 31 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 18 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of criminal proceedings against Christian Palazzese on the following question:
   ‘May Articles 43(1) and 49 (1) of the Treaty be interpreted as allowing the Member States to derogate temporarily (6 to 12 years) from the principle of freedom of establishment and of freedom to provide series within the European Union, by:

               1)

               allocating to certain persons licences for the pursuit of certain activities involving provision of services, valid for 6 or 12 years, on the basis of a body of rules which excluded from the tender procedure certain kinds of (non-Italian) competitors;

               2)

               amending that system, after subsequently noting that it was not compatible with the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty, so as to allow in future the participation of those persons who had been excluded;

               3)

               not revoking the licences granted on the basis of the earlier system which, as stated, infringed the principles of freedom of establishment and of free movement of services or setting up a new tender procedure pursuant to the new rules which now comply with the abovementioned principles;

               4)

               continuing, on the other hand, to pursue anyone carrying on business via a link with anyone who, despite being entitled to pursue such an activity in the Member State of origin, was excluded from the tender procedure precisely under the exclusions contained in the earlier rules, later removed’.


title: Case T-202/08: Action brought on 5 June 2008 — CLL Centre de langues v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/29

         Action brought on 5 June 2008 — CLL Centre de langues v Commission
   (Case T-202/08)
   (2008/C 183/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Centre de langues à Louvain-la-Neuve et -en-Woluwe (CLL Centre de langues) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: F. Tulkens and V. Ost, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the rejection decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CLL.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant disputes the Commission's decision to reject its application to participate in invitation to tender ADMIN/D1/PR/2008/004 regarding language training for staff at the European Union (EU) institutions, bodies and agencies in Brussels (OJ 2008/S 44-060121), on the ground that the application was submitted after the deadline stated in the contract notice.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision is based on an incorrect supposition that the awarding authority is required to reject all late applications to participate. The applicant takes the view, on the contrary, that the awarding authority has a margin of discretion in that regard.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contested decision is not sufficiently reasoned, since the Commission has not explained why it has not exercised its discretionary powers.
   Finally, the applicant raises a plea alleging breach of Article 123 of the implementing rules (1), according to which the number of candidates invited to tender must be sufficient to ensure genuine competition, and the disproportionate nature of the rejection of the applicant's application.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, p. 1).


title: Case F-68/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Possanzini v Frontex (Civil service — Frontex staff — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of contract based on the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 — Proof of notification of the report — Absence — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment — Notification of the appraisal report — Delay in the production and communication of the report)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/55

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Possanzini v Frontex
      (Case F-68/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of contract based on the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 - Proof of notification of the report - Absence - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment - Notification of the appraisal report - Delay in the production and communication of the report))
      (2016/C 364/71)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (represented by: H. Caniard and V. Peres de Almeida, acting as Agents, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Subject matter of the case

      Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 and the claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the order

                  1)

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2)

                  Daniele Possanzini is to bear his own cost and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 49.


title: Case C-527/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — R.H.H. Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 EC — Tax legislation — Income tax — Determination of the basis of assessment — National of a Member State receiving all or almost all of his income in that State — Residence in a different Member State)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — R.H.H. Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-527/06) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 39 EC - Tax legislation - Income tax - Determination of the basis of assessment - National of a Member State receiving all or almost all of his income in that State - Residence in a different Member State)
   (2008/C 313/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: R.H.H. Renneberg

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 56 EC — Determination of the taxable amount for purposes of income tax — National of a Member State receiving all of his income in that State but residing in a different Member State — National legislation which does not allow for deduction of negative income relating to a house situate in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a Community national who is not resident in the Member State in which he receives all or almost all of his taxable income cannot, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of that income in that Member State, deduct negative income relating to a house owned by him and used as a dwelling in another Member State, whereas a resident of the first Member State may deduct such negative income for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of taxation of his income.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-188/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aziz Melki

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/35

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aziz Melki
      (Case C-188/10)
      (2010/C 161/53)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de Cassation

         Party/parties to the main proceedings

      Aziz Melki

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007, preclude legislation such as that resulting from Article 23-2, paragraph 2, and Article 23-5, paragraph 2, of Order No 58-1067 of 7 November 1958, created by Organic Law No 2009-1523 of 10 December 2009, in so far as that article requires courts to rule as a priority on the submission to the Conseil constitutionnel of the question of constitutionality before them, inasmuch as that question concerns the failure of domestic legislation, because of its infringement of provisions of European Union law, to comply with the Constitution ?

                  2.

                  Does Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007, preclude legislation such as that resulting from Article 78-2, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that ‘in a zone between the land border of France with the States party to the Convention signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990 and a line traced 20 kilometres inside that border, and in the zones accessible to the public of ports, airports and railway or bus stations open to international traffic and designated by order, the identity of any person may also be controlled, in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph 1, in order to check that the obligations laid down by the law to hold, carry and present papers and documents are observed. Where that control takes place on board an international train, it may be carried out on the part of the journey between the border and the first stop situated beyond the twenty kilometres from the border. However, on international trains on lines with particular service characteristics the control may also be carried out between that stop and a stop situated within the next fifty kilometres. Those lines and those stops are designated by Ministerial order. Where there is a section of motorway starting in the zone referred to in the first sentence of this paragraph and the first motorway toll is beyond the twenty kilometre line, the control may also take place up to that first toll, on parking areas and on the site of that toll and the adjoining parking areas. The tolls concerned by that provision shall be designated by order’?


title: Case C-196/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Competition policy — Concentrations — Failure to comply with obligations imposed by the Commission — E.ON/Endesa)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-196/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Competition policy - Concentrations - Failure to comply with obligations imposed by the Commission - E.ON/Endesa)
   (2008/C 107/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Diaz Abad, agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 4279 final) and Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 7039 final)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by not withdrawing:

                           —

                           the conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17 imposed by the decision of the National Energy Committee which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 4279 final), and

                           —

                           the conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15, as amended, imposed by decision of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 7039 final),

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each of those decisions;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-158/07: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2009 — Cofac v Commission (ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Training schemes — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2009 — Cofac v Commission
   (Case T-158/07) (1)

   (ESF - Reduction in financial assistance - Training schemes - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard)
   2010/C 37/42
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofac — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Gomes, J. Ortigão and C. Peixoto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2005) 13066 of 3 June 2005 reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted to the applicant by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision No C(88) 0831 of 29 April 1988 for training schemes (file No 880707 P1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cofac — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-446/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — European Commission v Edison SpA (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — European Commission v Edison SpA
   (Case C-446/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons)
   2014/C 45/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Edison SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, R. Casati, M. Beretta, P. Merlino, F. Cannizzaro and E. Bruti Liberati, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-196/06 Edison v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns Edison SpA — Rules on the imputability of the anti-competitive practices of a subsidiary to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-397/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2009 — Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2009 — Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd
   (Case C-397/09)
   2009/C 312/36
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (1) — the EU interest and royalties directive — preclude a provision under which loan interest paid by a company of one Member State to an associated company of another Member State is added to the basis of assessment to trade tax for the first company?

               2.

               If so, is Article 1(10) of Directive 2003/49 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the option of not applying the directive even where the conditions set out in Article 3(b) in relation to the existence of an associated company have not yet been maintained for an uninterrupted period of at least two years at the time of payment of the interest?
               Can the Member States rely, in respect of the paying company, directly on Article 1(10) of the directive in those circumstances?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49.


title: Case T-2/13: Order of the General Court of 3 April 2014 — CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions — Trade union — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/30

         Order of the General Court of 3 April 2014 — CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission
   (Case T-2/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions - Trade union - Not individually affected - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 184/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 concerning State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008) — Reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the French Republic.

               3.

               CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-315/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu — Czech Republic) — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Collision between an aircraft and a bird — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Notion of ‘reasonable measures’ to avoid extraordinary circumstances or the consequences thereof)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu — Czech Republic) — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.
   (Case C-315/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Collision between an aircraft and a bird - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Notion of ‘reasonable measures’ to avoid extraordinary circumstances or the consequences thereof))
   (2017/C 213/06)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Obvodní soud pro Prahu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška

      Defendant: Travel Service a.s.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(3) 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 delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a collision between an aircraft and a bird is classified under the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that cancellation or delay of a flight is not due to extraordinary circumstances when that cancellation or delay is the result of the use by the air carrier of an expert of its choice to carry out fresh safety checks necessitated by a collision with a bird after those checks have already been carried out by an expert authorised under the applicable rules.

               3.

               Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reasonable measures’ which an air carrier must take in order to reduce or even prevent the risks of collision with a bird and thus be released from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 include control measures preventing the presence of such birds provided that, in particular at the technical and administrative levels, such measures can actually be taken by that air carrier, that those measures do not require it to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking and that that carrier has shown that those measures were actually taken as regards the flight affected by the collision with a bird, it being for the referring court to satisfy itself that those conditions have been met.

               4.

               Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a delay to a flight equal to or in excess of three hours in arrival caused not only by extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation and which were subject to all reasonable measures by the air carrier to avoid the consequences thereof, but also in other circumstances not in that category, the delay caused by the first event must be deducted from the total length of the delay in arrival of the flight concerned in order to assess whether compensation for the delay in arrival of that flight must be paid as provided for in Article 7 of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case C-292/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the case of Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler against Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the case of Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler against Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt
   (Case C-292/04)
   (2004/C 228/55)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) of 24 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler against Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt on the following question:
   Is Paragraph 36(2)(3) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (in the version in force during the relevant years), whereby only corporation tax payable by a fully-taxable corporation or association amounting to three sevenths of the income within the meaning of Paragraph 20(1)(1) or (2) of the Einkommensteuergesetz is set off against income tax, compatible with Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 29 August 1996 in the case of Société générale des grandes sources d'eaux minérales françaises against Bundesamt für Finanzen (Case C-361/96)

text:
  11 . 1 . 97           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 9/ 11
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
  Kôln by order of that court of 29 August 1996 in the case                that the Court should :
  of Société générale des grandes sources d'eaux minérales
             françaises against Bundesamt fiir Finanzen                    — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                                prescribed time limits the laws, regulations and
                            ( Case C-361 /96 )
                                                                                administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                 ( 97/C 9/19 )                                   with Commission Directive 93/106/EC (') amending
                                                                                Directive 92/76/EEC (2 ) recognizing protected zones
                                                                                exposed to particular plant health risks in the
                                                                                Community, and Commission Directive 94/3/EC ( 3 ) of
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          21 January 1994 establishing a procedure for the
 European Communities by order of the Second Senate of                           notification of interception of a consignment or a
 the Finanzgericht Koln ( Finance Court, Cologne ) of                            harmful organism from third countries and presenting
 29 August 1996, received at the Court Registry on                               an imminent phytosanitary danger, and by failing to
  12 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      communicate those measures to the Commission, the
 Societe generate des grandes sources d'eaux minerales                           Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
 frangaises against Bundesamt fur Finanzen ( Federal                             obligations pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 93/106/
 Finance Office ) on the following questions :                                   EC and Article 7 of Directive 94/3/EC respectively,
                                                                          — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
 ( a ) Does Article 3 ( a ) of the eighth Council Directive 79/                 costs .
        1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization
       of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       taxes ( J ) preclude the Member States from providing
       in their national law that where an invoice or import              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       document is lost for reasons beyond the control of a               Case C-356/96 (4 ); the time limit for transposition expired
       taxable person referred to in Article 2 of the Directive,          on 15 December 1993 in the case of Directive 93/ 106/EC
       that person may prove his entitlement to a refund by               and on 5 May 1994 in the case of Directive 94/3/EC.
       submitting a duplicate of tfie invoice or import
       document ?                                                         (') OJ No L 298 , 3 . 12 . 1993 , p. 34 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 305 , 21 . 10 . 1992 , p. 12 .
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 32, 5 . 2. 1994, p. 37.
 ( b ) Should the first question be answered in the negative,             (4) OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996, p. 10.
       does it follow from the prohibition on discrimination
       under Community law and from the principle of
       neutrality of turnover taxes that a taxable person
       referred to in Article 2 of the Directive, who loses an
       invoice or import document referred to in Article 3 ( a )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       for reasons beyond his control, has the right to prove
                                                                         Catania, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of
       his entitlement to a refund by submitting a duplicate
                                                                          14 October 1996 in the case of ISFA SpA v. Ministero
       of the invoice or import document ?                                                              delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-363/96 )
( J ) OJ No L 331 , 27. 12 . 1979, p . 11 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/21 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of Tribunale di Catania
                                                                         ( District Court, Catania ), First Civil Chamber, of
                                                                          14 October 1996, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 13 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 13 November 1996 by the Commission                     in the case of ISFA SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze on the
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                   following question :
                              Luxembourg
                                                                         Is it permissible under Community law for the competent
                          ( Case C-362/96 )                              authorities of the Italian State reasonably to rely on
                                                                         national procedural rules concerning the periods within
                               ( 97/C 9/20 )                             which proceedings must be brought ( in particular, the
                                                                         second paragraph of Article 13 of Presidential Decree
                                                                         No 641 of 26 October 1972 concerning a three-year
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                      period for bringing actions ) in proceedings brought against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      those authorities by an individual before a national court
Communities on 13 November 1996 by the Commission                        for the purpose of safeguarding the right to reimbursement
of the European Communities, represented by Gerard                       of amounts unduly paid ( in respect of administrative
Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an                charges under Decree Law No 853/84, converted into Law
address for service in Luxemburg at the office of Carlos                 No 17/85 , as subsequently amended ) in contravention of
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              the rules laid down in Council Directive 69/335/EEC of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2003 in Case T-33/00: Natalia Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision of the selection board not admitting candidate to oral tests — Scope of obligation to provide reasons — Scope of judicial review — Requests for reexamination of marking — Compliance with rules governing the work of selection boards — Manifest error)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/23
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 27 March 2003
                                                                                of 10 April 2003
in Case T-33/00: Natalia Martínez Páramo and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01: Alessandrini Srl and
                                                                            Others v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision of
the selection board not admitting candidate to oral tests —
Scope of obligation to provide reasons — Scope of judicial
review — Requests for reexamination of marking — Com-                      (Bananas — Third-country imports — Regulation (EC)
pliance with rules governing the work of selection boards —                No 2362/98 — Import licences for bananas from ACP
                            Manifest error)                                countries — Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 404/93 — Action for annulment — Action for
                                                                                compensation)
                           (2003/C 135/33)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/34)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-33/00: Natalia Martínez Páramo, residing in Brussels,
Anna Sodro, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), Ines van Lierde,
residing in Beersel (Belgium), Jean-Martial Marenne, residing in
Brussels, Ron Moys, residing in West Mallins, Kent (United
Kingdom) and Michel Horgan, residing in Brussels, represented
by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-              In Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01, Alessandrini Srl,
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                      established in Treviso (Italy), Anello Gino di Anello Luigi & C.
(Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application             Snc, established in Brescia (Italy), Arpigi Spa, established in
for annulment of the decisions of the chairman of the selection            Padua (Italy), Bestefruit Srl, established in Milan (Italy), Co-
board for internal competitions to establish members of the                Frutta SpA, established in Padua, Co-Frutta Soc.coop.arl,
temporary staff (COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98) not to                       established in Padua, Dal Bello SIFE Srl, established in Padua,
admit the applicants to the oral tests in those competitions               Frigofrutta Srl, established in Palermo (Italy), Garletti Snc,
after requests for reexamination of the marking of the written             established in Bergamo (Italy), London Fruit Ltd, established in
tests in those competitions were submitted by the applicants               London (United Kingdom), represented by W. Viscardini
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                 Donà and G. Donà, lawyers, with an address for service in
R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,                  Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the              (Agents: L. Visaggio, C. Van der Hauwaert, A. Dal Ferro and
Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 March 2003, in which it:                  G. Braun): Application, in Case T-93/00, for annulment of
                                                                           Commission letter No 02418 of 26 January 2000 and for
                                                                           compensation for damage allegedly suffered due to that act
1.     Dismisses the application;                                          and, in Case T-46/01, for annulment of Commission letter
                                                                           No AGR 030905 of 8 December 2000 and for compensation
                                                                           for damage allegedly suffered due to that act, the Court of First
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                         Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
( 1) OJ 2000 C 135.
                                                                           1.   Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/
                                                                                01;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht by order of that court of 6 October 1995 in the case of David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes, his wife, in their capacity as a partnership under English civil law, v. Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation, represented by its liquidator, Klaus D. Wein (Case C-323/95)

text:
No C 333/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Saarlandisches           Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Oberlandesgericht by order of that court of 6 October 1995           Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
in the case of David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
Hayes, his wife, in their capacity as a partnership under            1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
English civil law, v. Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation,              necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the
       represented by its liquidator, Klaus D. Wein                  conclusions of the Commission .
                         Case C-323 /95
                                                                     (') OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41 .
                         ( 95/C 333/ 13 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Saarlandisches
Oberlandesgericht ( Saarland Higher Regional Court ) of
6 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of
on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 the European Communities against Ireland
David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes, his wife, in
                                                                                Case C-325 /95 )
their capacity as a partnership under English civil law, v.
Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation, represented by its                                           ( 95/C 333/ 15 )
liquidator, Klaus D. Wein, on the following question :
                                                                     An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Where British nationals possessing no residence or assets in         Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Germany have brought proceedings before a German civil               by the Commission of the European Communities,
court against a limited liability company established in             represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal
Germany for payment of the purchase price of goods                   Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
supplied, and are required by the competent German court,            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
on application by the defendant, to furnish security for             Centre Wagner.
costs pursuant to paragraph 110 of the German
Zivilprozefiordnung ( Code of Civil Procedure ), does that           The Applicant claims that the Court should :
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality
contrary to the first paragraph of Article 7 of the EEC              1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,
Treaty ?                                                                 regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with
                                                                         — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991
                                                                             concerning the animal health conditions governing
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of                       the placing on the market of aquaculture animals
         the European Communities against Ireland                            and products (');
                       ( Case C-324/95 )                                 — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991
                         ( 95/C 333/ 14 )                                    laying down the health conditions for the
                                                                             production and the placing on the market of live
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                    bivalve molluscs ( 2 );
Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991
represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal                          laying down the health conditions for the
Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in                     production and the placing on the market of fishery
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         products ( 3 );
Centre Wagner .
                                                                         — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                 down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                             fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Council
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       Directive 91 /493/EEC ( 4 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil
    Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November 1990                        its respective obligations under those Directives;
    concerning public health and animal health problems
    affecting the production and placing on the market of            2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .
    rabbit meat and farmed game meat ( 1 ) Ireland has failed
    to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall          down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions


title: Case C-87/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/73/EC — Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC — Organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-87/08) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/73/EC - Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC - Organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 301/25)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-30/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2015 by Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-450/09: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/29

         Appeal brought on 27 January 2015 by Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-450/09: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-30/15 P)
   (2015/C 138/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Ruhl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Seven Towns Limited

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 November 2014 in case T-450/09 Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v. OHIM- Seven Towns Limited;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 1 September 2009 (case 1526/2008-2);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) and Seven Towns Limited to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Court and of the application proceedings at first instance before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises six grounds of appeal: The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (1). The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94. The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94. The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. The sixth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (2).
   The first ground of appeal is divided into eleven parts: incorrect ‘fathom precisely’ requirement; incorrect disregard of products already on the market; findings on disclosure of the trademark representation based on distortion of facts and evidence; too narrow interpretation of the criterion ‘technical function’; disregard of lack of essential arbitrary features; incorrect public interest considerations; incorrect legal assessment of relevance of lack of alternative shapes; finding of alternative shapes based on distortion of facts and evidence; incorrect legal standards in relation to causation and result of technical function; irrelevance of possibility of cubes without visible lines; incorrect conclusion from alleged non-technicality of one subcategory of goods to non-technicality of all other goods for which a trademark is registered.
   The second ground of appeal consists of one part: incorrect disregard that the essential elements are functional.
   The third ground of appeal consists of one part: incorrect disregard that the essential elements give substantial value to the product.
   The fourth ground of appeal is divided into eleven parts: incorrect legal assessment of burden of proof incorrect analysis of the individual features of the contested trademark; incorrect disregard of technicality of individual features; incorrect reliance only on the norms of the sector concerned; incorrect ‘spontaneously’ criterion; incorrect conclusion from alleged distinctiveness of one subcategory of goods to distinctiveness to all other goods for which a trademark is registered; incorrect application of ‘most likely to be taken’ criterion; denial of magic cube as the most likely shape only through distortion of facts and evidence; incorrect assessment of distinctiveness only from the perspective of the customer; incorrect refusal to consider specific products actually marketed; incorrect legal standards for the relevance of products already on the market.
   The fifth ground of appeal is divided into eighth parts: incorrect ‘unambiguously’ requirement; incorrect ‘spontaneously’ requirement; incorrect interpretation of the ‘direct and specific link’ criterion; incorrect analysis of descriptiveness only with regard to general wording of goods; incorrect definition of relevant public; incorrect assessment of knowledge of public; incorrect disregard of future developments; incorrect assessment of public interest by incorrect reference to alternative shapes.
   The sixth ground of appeal consists of one part: incorrect finding of facts without taking evidence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 11, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case C-364/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság
   (Case C-364/11)
   2011/C 347/10
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa, Chadi Amin A Radi, Kamel Ismail Hazem

      Defendants: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive?

               2.

               Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case T-94/10: Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany GmbH and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/30

         Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany GmbH and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-94/10) (1)

   (REACH - Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2013/C 114/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Deza, a.s., (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Bilbaí (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany)) (represented by: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana,)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil (EC No 292-602-7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in accordance with Article 59 of REACH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA and Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-536/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/20

         Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
   (Case T-536/14)
   2014/C 339/24
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88  933

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: CTM registrations, International trade mark registrations and well-known mark ‘ST REGIS’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.