title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 9 December 1997 in Case C-143/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (Common Customs Tariff - 'Crushed' peppers within the meaning of subheading 0904 20 90 of the Combined Nomenclature)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/5
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.1996.
                                                                                of 11 December 1997
                                                                     in Case C-8/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Tours): Locamion SA
                                                                         v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre-et-Loire (1)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Regional charge on vehicle
                       (Third Chamber)                                                  registration certificates)
                     of 9 December 1997                                                       (98/C 55/08)
in Case C-143/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Leonhard Knubben Speditions
            GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (1)                                       (Language of the case: French)
(Common Customs Tariff Ð Crushed' peppers within the
meaning of subheading 0904 20 90 of the Combined
                        Nomenclature)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         (98/C 55/07)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     In Case C-8/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
          published in the European Court Reports)                   (Regional Court), Tours (France), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Locamion SA and Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre-
In Case C-143/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           et-Loire Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal                   335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
Finance Court) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the            raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II),
proceedings pending before that court between Leonhard               p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of
Knubben Speditions GmbH and Hauptzollamt Mannheim                    9 April 1973 varying the field of application of the
Ð on the interpretation of subheading 0904 20 of the                 reduced rate of capital duty provided for in respect of
Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from                 certain     company       reconstruction      operations     by
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of                            Article 7(1)(b) of the directive concerning indirect taxes on
21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Council                        the raising of capital (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13), by
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical            Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ                    common rates of capital duty (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973,
L 298, 31.10.1988, p. 1) and from Commission                         p. 15), by Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November
Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989                         1974 amending Article 5(2) of Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ
amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 (OJ L 282,                 L 303, 13.11.1974, p. 9), and by Council Directive 85/
2.10.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed               303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho             (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth
de Almeida (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; A.             Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                  President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Cosmas,
9 December 1997, in which it has ruled:                              Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Subheading 0904 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, in                  11 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs                   Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                     1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
Tariff and from Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/
                                                                     amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973
89 of 2 August 1989 amending Annex I to Regulation
                                                                     varying the field of application of the reduced rate of
(EEC) No 2658/87, must be construed as meaning that
                                                                     capital duty provided for in respect of certain company
the expression sonst zerkleinert' (otherwise crushed')
                                                                     reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the
does not cover a product cut into pieces measuring
                                                                     directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
between 4 and 8 mm.
                                                                     capital, by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973
                                                                     fixing common rates of capital duty, by Council Directive
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                             74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5(2)
                                                                     of Directive 69/335/EEC, and by Council Directive 85/
                                                                     303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/


title: Case T-78/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark IPVanish — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)
   (Case T-78/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark IPVanish - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 156/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mudhook Marketing, Inc. (Winter Park, Florida, United States) (represented by: H. Eckermann and A. Dellmeier, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1417/2014-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign IPVanish as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mudhook Marketing, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-690/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai (France) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai (France) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-690/15)
   (2016/C 098/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Douai

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wenceslas de Lobkowicz

      Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Question referred

   Is there any principle of EU law which precludes an official of the European Commission being subject to the contribution sociale généralisée (general social contribution), the prélèvement social (social levy), and additional contributions to that levy at the rate of 0.3 % and 1.1 % on income from real estate received in a Member State of the European Union?


title: Case T-564/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Ministry of Energy of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Breach of fundamental rights — Proportionality)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Ministry of Energy of Iran v Council
   (Case T-564/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Breach of fundamental rights - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 346/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ministry of Energy of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Ministry of Energy of Iran to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case T-187/99: Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Agrana Zucker-GesmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 314/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                           INSTANCE
                     of 10 September 1999
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-173/99 R: Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel v
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant manufactures starch from potatoes and maize
                                                                         and markets its products both within Austria and abroad, in
(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Urgency —                  the non-food sector (paper industry, chemical industry, textile
                              None)                                      industry, etc.) and in the biological sector.
                        (1999/C 314/23)
                                                                         The contested decision declared the aid plan, by which aid
                                                                         corresponding to 20 % of the investment costs was to be
                   (Language of the case: French)                        granted to the applicant in respect of the investments made by
                                                                         it in its plant in Aschach (converting a high-pressure soaking
                                                                         facility for maize starch to standard technology and increasing
In Case T-173/99 R: Gilbert Elkaïm, residing in Paris, and               its capacity; investing in a saccharification line using maize
Philippe Mazuel, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas            starch as the raw material), to be incompatible with the
Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, v Commission of the European              common market and refused approval of that aid plan.
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Clo-
tuche-Duvieusart) — application for suspension of the pro-
cedure for the recruitment of successful candidates in open
                                                                         The applicant advances the following pleas:
competition COM/A/15/98 — the President of the Court of
First Instance made an order on 10 September 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                   — At the time of the opening of the investigation procedure
                                                                              concerning the grant of aid to the Aschach plant, the
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                         two-month ‘Lorenz’ time-limit had already expired. Conse-
                                                                              quently, the Republic of Austria is (and was) entitled to
2. The costs are reserved.                                                    implement the aid measures. The Commission’s decision,
                                                                              according to which the aid plan may not be implemented,
                                                                              is therefore unlawful.
                                                                         — In Article 151(1) of the Act of Accession of Austria, in
                                                                              conjunction with Declaration No 31 appended to the Final
                                                                              Act, the Contracting Parties agreed to show flexibility with
Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Agrana Zucker-                            regard to transitional national aid schemes designed to
GesmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                            facilitate the restructuring of the processing industry in
                             munities                                         Austria with a view to adjustment to the internal market.
                                                                              As a result, the Commission is under an obligation, in
                                                                              cases involving aid plans such as this, to refrain from
                         (Case T-187/99)                                      applying a narrow construction to the exception provided
                                                                              for by Article 87(3)(c) EC, as it would normally do, and
                        (1999/C 314/24)                                       instead to interpret that provision widely, having regard to
                                                                              the special ‘accession scenario’ (that is to say, the special
                                                                              situation prevailing in the processing industry in Austria
                 (Language of the Case: German)                               where accession is not accompanied by transitional
                                                                              arrangements). The Commission failed to do this in the
                                                                              contested decision; in exercising its discretion, it thus
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     infringed the rules of primary law laid down by the Act of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Accession.
European Communities on 20 August 1999 by Agrana
Zucker-GesmbH, of Vienna, represented by Walter Barfuß and
Hanno Wollmann, of Messrs Schönherr Barfuß Torggler &                    — In its decision, the Commission failed to consider, or gave
Partners, Vienna, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                only rudimentary consideration to, the main argument
the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach. 8-10 Rue                           advanced by the Republic of Austria throughout the aid
Mathias Hardt.                                                                procedure, based on Declaration No 31 appended to the
                                                                              Final Act and the need to give the Austrian processing
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   industry (particularly the starch industry) the opportunity
                                                                              to carry out structural adjustments. Consequently, the
(1) annul Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Septem-                       contested decision is vitiated by an absence of reasoning
    ber 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant to                   within the meaning of Article 253 EC.
    Agrana Stärke GmbH to build and convert starch pro-
    duction facilities (notified under document num-
    ber C(1998) 3023) (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61; correction
    published in OJ 1999 L 145, p. 40);


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2001 in Case C-340/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Genova): TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiane SpA (Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 82 EC and 86 EC) — Postal services — National legislation making the supply of express mail services by undertakings other than the one responsible for operating the universal service subject to payment of the postal dues normally applicable to the universal service — Allocation of the proceeds of those dues to the undertaking with the exclusive right to operate the universal service)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/21
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    That may be proved in accordance with the rules of the domestic
                                                                                legal system of the Member State concerned, provided that those
                                                                                rules are not less favourable than those governing similar
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                        domestic actions and do not render virtually impossible or
                                                                                excessevely difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Com-
                                                                                munity law.
                            of 17 May 2001
in Case C-340/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
the Tribunale civile di Genova): TNT Traco SpA v Poste
                            Italiane SpA (1)
(Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 82 EC
and 86 EC) — Postal services — National legislation making
the supply of express mail services by undertakings other
than the one responsible for operating the universal service
subject to payment of the postal dues normally applicable to
the universal service — Allocation of the proceeds of those
dues to the undertaking with the exclusive right to operate                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         the universal service)
                                                                                of 31 May 2001
                           (2001/C 200/36)
                                                                            in Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P: D and
                                                                             Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the European Union (1)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Appeal — Official — Household allowance — Married
                                                                                official — Registered partnership under Swedish law)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/37)
In Case C-340/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Civil District Court,
Genoa, Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                      (Language of the case: Swedish)
pending before that court between TNT Traco SpA and Poste
Italiane SpA, formerly Ente Poste Italiane, and Others — on
the interpretation of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 82 EC and 86 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                                          in the European Court Reports)
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P: D, an official of
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                            the Council of the European Union, residing in Arvika
judgment on 17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (Sweden), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and
                                                                            V. Peere, avocats, Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: L. Nordling),
1.    In so far as trade between Member States may be affected,             supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde) and by
      Article 86 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 90      Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and J. van
      thereof (now Articles 82 EC and 86 EC), precludes legislation         Bakel) — two appeals against the judgment of the Court of
      of a Member State which grants a private-law undertaking the          First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)
      exclusive right to operate the universal postal service from          in Case T-264/97 D v Council [1999] ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1,
      making the right, of any other economic operator to provide an        seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
      express mail service not forming part of the universal service        proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
      subject to payment of postal dues equivalent to the postage           M. Bauer and E. Karlsson) — the Court, composed of:
      charge normally payable to the undertaking responsible for the        G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
      universal service, unless it can be shown that the proceeds of        M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
      such payment are necessary to enable the undertaking to operate       D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón,
      the universal postal service in economically acceptable conditions    R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
      and that the undertaking is required to pay the same dues when        Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advo-
      itself providing an express mail service not forming part of the      cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
      universal service.                                                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-65/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Free movement of goods — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Prohibition on the installation and operation of electrical, electromechanical and electronic games subject to criminal or administrative sanctions — Directive 98/34/EC — Technical standards and regulations — National legislation applicable to electrical, electromechanical and electronic games)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-65/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Free movement of goods - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Prohibition on the installation and operation of electrical, electromechanical and electronic games subject to criminal or administrative sanctions - Directive 98/34/EC - Technical standards and regulations - National legislation applicable to electrical, electromechanical and electronic games)
   (2006/C 326/16)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and N. Dafniou, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Arts 28, 43 and 49 EC and Art. 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) — National legislation applicable to electronic computer games
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by inserting into Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002 the prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of the same law, on the installation and operation of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.


title: Case T-126/14: Action brought on 21 February 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/61

         Action brought on 21 February 2014 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-126/14)
   2014/C 112/78
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Primarily, annul Article 1 of the contested decision and the annex thereto, in so far as that provision and annex relate to interest, in the amount of EUR 4 703 231,78, which, it is alleged, the Netherlands wrongly failed to calculate in respect of a number of claims relating to the late payment of additional levies and unlawfully granted export refunds;

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 1 of the contested decision and the annex thereto, in so far as that provision and annex relate to interest, in the amount of EUR 3 208 935,04, which, it is alleged, the Netherlands wrongly failed to calculate in respect of a number of claims relating to the late payment of additional levies;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action seeks partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be given, by reason of the lack of coherent and comprehensible reasoning for the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 13(2) TEU by reason of the imposition of an adjustment in relation to interest rates without indication of a basis under European Union law for doing so, and/or misapplication of the principle of equivalence by reason of the assumption that the Netherlands, at the time of the relevant facts, had charged interest in connection with comparable domestic claims.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of care, in conjunction with Article 8(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1) and Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91, (2) by reason of the failure to take a decision, prior to 16 October 2006, on outstanding claims.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (OJ 1991 L 67, p. 11).


title: Case T-164/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/31

         Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)
   (Case T-164/16)
   (2016/C 200/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Piper Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Oster, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ — Application No 13 687 371

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1099/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision in such a way that registration of the word/figurative mark ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ as an EU trade mark at the European Union Intellectual Property Office is ordered.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-413/17: Action brought on 29 June 2017 — Karl Storz v EUIPO (3D)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/52

         Action brought on 29 June 2017 — Karl Storz v EUIPO (3D)
   (Case T-413/17)
   (2017/C 277/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Gruber, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘3D’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 272 627

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2017 in Case R 1502/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 11 April 2017 in Case R 1502/2016-2 and register the trade mark ‘3D’, IR 1 272 627, designating the European Union for all the goods applied for including the goods which are still affected by the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-175/06: Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Coca-Cola Company v OHIM — Azienda Agricola San Polo (MEZZOPANE)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/33

         Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Coca-Cola Company v OHIM — Azienda Agricola San Polo (MEZZOPANE)
   (Case T-175/06)
   (2006/C 212/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Coca-Cola Company (N.W Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A) (represented by: E. Armijo Chavarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Azienda Agricola San Polo Exe S.r.l
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2006 in Case R-99/2005-1;

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Azienda Agricola San Polo Exe S.r.l

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark 'MEZZOPANE' for goods in Class 33 — Application No 2 242 147.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark 'MEZZO' and 'MEZZOMIX' for goods in Class 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for registration of the mark refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division's decision annulled.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 since the goods designated by the opposing marks are similar, the opposing marks are visually and phonetically similar and the marks at issue are capable of giving rise to a likelihood of confusion in the course of trade.


title: Case C-300/99 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova S.A. and 31 others and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 333/12                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
the European Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and                      Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at
Roland Tricot) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch            in the case of Pavarini Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl)
and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,              v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-                following question:
nemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                       Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the
                                                                            rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                    No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                            consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
2. Orders Édouard Dubois et Fils SA to pay the costs.                      the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                            contributions of 1%?
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                        Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of                          27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA against Direzione delle                        Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
               Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                           European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
                                                                            cova S.A. and 31 others and the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                          (Case C-279/99)
                                                                                (Case C-300/99 P)
                          (1999/C 333/24)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                   An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at               Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova S.A. and
the Court Registry on 26 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling                31 others and the Council of the European Union was brought
in the case of Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA v Direzione delle               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the following question:               10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented
                                                                            by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva
Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with                 Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the              Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas
rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                              Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by              The appellants claim that the Court should:
the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
contributions of 1%?                                                        (1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-194/95 on account of all or some
                                                                                of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                               consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,
                                                                                either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case
                                                                                or by referring the matter back to the Court of First
                                                                                Instance;
                                                                            (2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court
                                                                                of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                             in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Pavarini                      upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first
Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl) against Direzione                           instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
           delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
                          (Case C-296/99)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — Infringement of Community law, consisting of the misap-
                          (1999/C 333/25)                                        plication and misinterpretation of Article 230 (formerly
                                                                                Article 173) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as the order treats
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the contested regulation as a measure of general application
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                        and ignores the fact that it is applicable only to a wholly
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First                   individualised and identified group of economic operators;
 ---pagebreak--- 20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/13
— Infringement of Community law, inasmuch as the contest-                  1. Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
     ed order denied the appellants a form of effective legal                  1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
     protection, contrary to the provisions of Article 6 of the                supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
     European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights                    lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directi-
     in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European                ve 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     Union, by wrongly regarding the preliminary ruling pro-                   taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that
     cedure as an obligatory means of legal protection of the                  the administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate
     interests of individuals.                                                 for registration of ‘other company documents’ for each of
                                                                               the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
                                                                               sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
                                                                               partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private
                                                                               limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           2. Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                         munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                       sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the                           sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA                      according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
                 against Ministero delle Finanze                               that Law entered into force (2.5% per annum) and not
                                                                               according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
                 (Cases C-303/99 and C-304/99)                                 respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
                                                                               subsequently amended?
                          (1999/C 333/27)
                                                                           (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
Terza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA
against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                 Hamburg by order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10              case of Banque Internationale pour l’Afrique Occidentale
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969                 S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt für Großunterneh-
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       men in Hamburg
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                        (Case C-306/99)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                                           (1999/C 333/29)
limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                         European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
                                                                           Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) of 29 April 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Internationale pour
                                                                           l’Afrique Occidentale S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt
                                                                           für Großunternehmen in Hamburg on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                   I. Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the case
      of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                           Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction in the procedure
                                                                           for preliminary rulings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (old
                          (Case C-305/99)                                  version) (Article 234 EC in the version in force from 1 May
                                                                           1999 under the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997 (new
                          (1999/C 333/28)                                  version)) to interpret the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC
                                                                           of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11, ‘the Directive’) not only
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,                 where there is doubt as to the application in conformity with
Jerza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court               the Directive of the national commercial law on accounts of
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                capital companies [in this case, Paragraph 264 et seq. of the
case of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze on the              German Handelsgesetzbuch (Commercial Code, ‘the HGB’)],
following questions:                                                       but also:


title: Case T-253/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/22

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission
   (Case T-253/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 38/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Bauer SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. M. Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Bortoluzzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               Bauer SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-174/99 P: Appeal brought on 10 May 1999 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre Richard and European Parliament

text:
C 246/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          between officials must serve the objective set in Article 27 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations of securing for the institution the services
The application is made on the basis of an arbitration clause            of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
and is founded on a standard contract governed by French                 integrity.
law.
Appeal brought on 10 May 1999 by the European Parlia-                    Appeal brought on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of
ment against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999 by                   the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  ed on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
               Richard and European Parliament                           T-76/98 between Claudine Hamptaux and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-174/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-207/99 P)
                         (1999/C 246/19)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/20)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 March 1999
European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre                     by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Richard and European Parliament was brought before the                   European Communities in Case T-76/98 between Claudine
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 May 1999              Hamptaux and the Commission of the European Communities
by the European Parliament, represented by João Sant’Anna, of           was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
its Legal Service, acting as agent, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck,        Communities on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of the
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           European Communities, represented by Christine Berardis-
at the Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Mail and          Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche, of its Legal Service, acting
Registration Department, Tower Building, Office 017.                     as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
The appellant claims that the Court should:                              Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9             The appellant claims that the Court should:
     March 1999 in Case T-273/97 between Pierre Richard and
     the European Parliament;                                            — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
— consequently, refer the case back to the Court of First                — consequently, annul the contested judgment and dismiss
     Instance;                                                                the respondent’s claim;
— reserve a decision as to costs until final adjudication.               — alternatively, refer the case back, in consequence, to the
                                                                              Court of First Instance;
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         — reserve the costs.
Breach of Community law, specifically of Article 29 of the
Staff Regulations: in the judgment under appeal, the Court of            Pleas in law and main arguments
First Instance fundamentally changed the interpretation of
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations. Instead of taking the            Contradiction in the grounds of judgment and error of law
view that Article 29(1) provides for a procedure to fill a vacant        as regards the promotion procedure carried out by the
post, with separate rules — it being a question for the                  Commission: the Court of First Instance erred — and contra-
appointing authority whether they enable the most suitable               dicted its own findings of fact — in concluding that, according
person to be found — the Court of First Instance espoused the            to the promotion procedure carried out by the Commission,
view that Article 29 provides for a series of four separate              officials whose names had already appeared on the list of those
stages or phases, each of which must be formally initiated and           most deserving of promotion in the previous year but had not
closed before the appointing authority can move on to the                been promoted would automatically be included on the list of
next. The Court also took the view that, as from the moment              most deserving officials. It is apparent from the facts accepted
when a suitable candidate is discovered during the first stage           by the Court of First Instance itself that the names of such
under Article 29, the institution is no longer entitled to extend        officials do not automatically feature on that list and that they
the range of choice available by considering possibilities under         are not automatically promoted, since the Commission checks
other rules, laid down in Article 29(1)) of the Staff Regulations.       in each individual case to ensure that the officials concerned
In so doing, the judgment under appeal contravenes two of                have not ceased to be ‘meritorious’, that is to say, that they are
the fundamental principles which must be respected in the                still deserving of promotion, which necessarily involves an
case of any appointment of officials to vacancies: (i) the               examination of their comparative merits.
principle laid down in Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations,
according to which all appointments must be made exclusively
in the interests of the service; (ii) the principle that all choices


title: Case C-295/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 July 2008 by Cofra srl against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) made on 15 April 2008 in Case T-478/07 Cofra srl v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/24

         Appeal brought on 3 July 2008 by Cofra srl against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) made on 15 April 2008 in Case T-478/07 Cofra srl v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-295/08 P)
   2009/C 267/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant(s): Cofra srl (represented by A. Calabrese, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   By order of 29 June 2009 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-306/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2017 — Éva Nothartová v József Boldizsár Sámson

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2017 — Éva Nothartová v József Boldizsár Sámson
   (Case C-306/17)
   (2017/C 269/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Tatabányai Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Éva Nothartová

      Defendant: József Boldizsár Sámson

      Question referred

   Where there is a counterclaim arising from a contract or facts different from those on which the claim is based, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim:

               (a)

               Does only Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’) (1) apply because only that provision concerns the counterclaim, or

               (b)

               Does Article 8(3) of the Brussels Ia Regulation refer solely to a counterclaim arising from the same contract or facts on which the claim is based, so that that regulation does not apply to a counterclaim which does not arise from the same contract or facts on which the claim is based, and for this reason must it be determined, in accordance with the other rules of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, that the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim also has jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


title: Case T-14/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/36

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case T-14/11) (1)

   2011/C 238/65
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-512/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Social security — Medical treatment proposed in another Member State and requiring the use of major medical equipment — Requirement of prior authorisation — Planned treatment provided in another Member State — Difference in the levels of cover in force in the Member State of affiliation and in the Member State of stay, respectively — Insured person’s right to assistance by the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-512/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Medical treatment proposed in another Member State and requiring the use of major medical equipment - Requirement of prior authorisation - Planned treatment provided in another Member State - Difference in the levels of cover in force in the Member State of affiliation and in the Member State of stay, respectively - Insured person’s right to assistance by the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)
   2010/C 328/04
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, G. Rozet and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: A. Czubinski and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by I. Rao, and subsequently by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirement of prior authorisation, from the State of insurance, in order to obtain repayment for certain non-hospital treatment received in another Member State — Failure to pay the difference between the amount received by the insured, who receives hospital treatment in a Member State other than the Member State of insurance, and the amount to which he would have been entitled had he received the same treatment in the Member State of insurance — Unjustified obstacles to the freedom to provide services

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-500/04: Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/31

         Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH
   (Case T-500/04)
   (2005/C 82/59)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH, Königswinter (Germany), was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Braun, W. Wils and N. Knittlmayer, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 181 236,61 together with interest at 4 % as from 1 November 1998;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1996 the applicant concluded with the defendant two contracts in which the applicant undertook to grant the defendant financial aid for the implementation of two trans European cultural projects. The financial aid was intended to cover 50 % of the defendant's project costs in so far as those costs were incurred and claimed in a contractually permissible manner. In 1997, on the basis of those contracts, the defendant received a sum totalling DM 400 821 (EUR 204 936,52) as an advance payment of the total financial aid.
   Following completion of the projects, the defendant claimed from the applicant purported project costs, the amount of which it intended to deduct from the financial aid paid in advance. However, the applicant carried out a check and came to the conclusion that the defendant was entitled only to financial aid totalling DM 46 300,18 (EUR 23 672,91) for both projects. The applicant therefore claims repayment of the remaining sum of EUR 181 263,61 (DM 354 520,82).


title: Case C-448/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Novel foods and novel food ingredients — Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Article 1(2)(c) — Concept of foods and food ingredients with a new primary molecular structure)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg
   (Case C-448/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Novel foods and novel food ingredients - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(2)(c) - Concept of foods and food ingredients with a new primary molecular structure))
   (2017/C 006/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Davitas GmbH

      Defendant: Stadt Aschaffenburg

      Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘new primary molecular structure’ relates to foods or food ingredients which were not used for human consumption in the territory of the European Union before 15 May 1997.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-62/13: Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/27

         Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
   (Case T-62/13)
   2013/C 86/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2012 in Case R 2089/2011-2;

               —

               reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

               —

               order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘METABIOMAX’, for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community word mark ‘BIOMAX’ which has been registered under No 2661858, for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division partly annulled.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-803/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue — Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue)
      (Case T-803/14) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue - Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 211/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

         Intervener in the proceedings before the General Court, successor in law to San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mahou, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez-López, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2014 (Case R 1382/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Compagnie Gervais Danone to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Case C-487/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Alberto Galán Luna and Domingo Galán Luna

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Alberto Galán Luna and Domingo Galán Luna
   (Case C-487/13)
   2013/C 352/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixabank SA

      Defendants: Alberto Galán Luna and Domingo Galán Luna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 April 1997 in Case T-66/95: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Cover by the Common Sickness Insurance Scheme - Ex-spouse of a former official - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Duty to have regard for the welfare of the person concerned - Free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Decision of a national court splitting pension rights by way of compensation - Effects)

text:
 14 . 6 . 97         1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 181 / 13
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten and               5.    reserves the costs .
Frank Schulze, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
                                                                      (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
Dupong and Guy Konsbruck-Raus, 14a Rue des Bains,
against Council of the European Union ( Agent: Arthur
Brautigam ) and Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Dierk Booß, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
Georg M. Berrisch ), application pursuant to Article 178
and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of 22 July
1993 providing for an offer of compensation to certain
producers of milk and milk products temporarily                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
prevented from carrying on their trade ( OJ No L 196,                                          of 16 April 1997
1993 , p. 6 ), for compensation for the losses sustained by
the applicant owing to the fact that he was prevented                in Case T-66/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission
from marketing milk as a result of Council Regulation                                of the European Communities (')
( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general                   (Officials — Cover by the Common Sickness Insurance
rules for the application of the levy referred to in                 Scheme — Ex-spouse of a former official — Action for
Article 5 (c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk           annulment — Admissibility — Duty to have regard for the
and milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p. 13 ), as              welfare of the person concerned — Free movement of
supplemented by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1371 /              persons — Equal treatment — Decision of a national
84 of 16 May 1984 ( OJ No L 132, 1984, p. 11 ) — the                 court splitting pension rights by way of compensation —
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                                  Effects)
( First Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of A.
Saggio, President, and C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos,                                        ( 97/C 181 /25 )
V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges, Registrar: H.
Jung, has given a judgment on 16 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . declares that the defendants are bound to make good
      the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of
                                                                     In Case T-66/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the ex-wife of
      the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
                                                                     a former official of the European Parliament, residing at
      84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                     Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter Rogalla,
      application of the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of
                                                                     Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for service in
      Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
      products sector, as supplemented by Commission
                                                                     Roger Barthel , Béreldange, against Commission of the
      Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84 of 16 May 1984 laying .
                                                                     European Communities ( Agents : Joseph Griesmar, Julian
      down detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                     Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — application for a
      additional levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of
                                                                     declaration that the defendant is under a duty, on the one
      Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as those
                                                                     hand, to continue to guarantee the applicant cover under
      Regulations did not make provision for the allocation          the Common Sickness Insurance Scheme and, on the other
      of a reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to
                                                                     hand, to use its right of initiative vis-a-vis the Council
      an undertaking given under Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     with a view to enabling persons in the applicant's position
      No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of
                                                                     to qualify for cover under the Common Sickness Insurance
      premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk
                                                                     Scheme and, in the alternative, for a declaration drawing
      products and for the conversion of dairy herds, did
                                                                     the German Government's attention to the gap in its
      not deliver milk during the reference year opted for by
      the Member State concerned;
                                                                     national legislation on sickness insurance and calling upon
                                                                     it to take appropriate measures to rectify that situation —
                                                                     the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                     A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
2 . declares that the period in respect of which the                 Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      applicant must be compensated for the losses sustained         given a judgment on 16 April 1997, in which it:
      as a result of the application of Regulation (EEC)
      No 857/84 is that beginning on 4 May 1987 and
      ending on 28 March 1989;
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
3 . orders the parties to forward to the Court, within
      12 months of this judgment, the amounts to be paid,            2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      established by mutual agreement;
                                                                     (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
4 . orders the parties, in the absence of an agreement, to
      submit to the Court their quantified claims;


title: Case C-529/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2008 — Friedrich Schulze, Jochen Kolenda, Helmar Rendenz v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2008 — Friedrich Schulze, Jochen Kolenda, Helmar Rendenz v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-529/08)
   (2009/C 44/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Friedrich Schulze, Jochen Kolenda, Helmar Rendenz

      Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can a technical defect which causes a cancellation be an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of 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 (1)?

               2.

               If so, does the concept of an extraordinary circumstance in the form of a technical defect include also those faults which affect the airworthiness of the aircraft or the safe completion of the flight?

               3.

               Has the operating air carrier taken all reasonable measures where it has complied with the manufacturer's servicing and maintenance programme for the aircraft in question and with the safety standards and instructions of the competent authority or manufacturer, or where the fault could not have been avoided even if the carrier had complied with that programme or those directions?

               4.

               If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is that sufficient to release the air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation, or is further evidence required that the cancellation, that is to say, the fact of the relevant aircraft being taken out of operation and the cancelling of the flight owing to the lack of a replacement aircraft, would also not have been avoided by the taking of all reasonable measures?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-434/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   (Case C-434/06)
   (2006/C 326/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León

      Defendants: Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   Question referred
   Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for a deduction from the amount of tax payable which does not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia amending Articles 29(1)(a) and 37 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?


title: Case F-53/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 January 2012 — Kedzierski v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 January 2012 — Kedzierski v Commission
   (Case F-53/11) (1)

   2012/C 126/54
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011 p. 37.


title: Case C-451/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG
   (Case C-451/13)
   2013/C 344/71
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gigaset AG

      Defendants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a decision by which it imposes a fine on several natural or legal persons as joint and several debtors for a breach of Article 101 TFEU, is the Commission also obliged to give a conclusive ruling on the question as to what shares of the fine should be apportioned to the individual joint and several debtors?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is a Commission decision which contains no express instruction as to apportionment among joint and several debtors to be interpreted as meaning that the fine is to be paid in equal shares by all of the joint and several debtors?

                           (b)

                           If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative:
                           Can the courts of the Member States close the gap in the decision that ensues if the Commission does not rule on the apportionment of the fine among joint and several debtors, without any need for a supplementary decision by the Commission?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2(b) in the affirmative: Does European Union law contain provisions as to how a fine should be apportioned among joint and several debtors?

               4.

               If Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
               Can a joint and several debtor which has paid the fine in full or in part seek settlement by the other joint and several debtors before a final decision has been taken on an action brought challenging the fixing of the fine?


C 144/64               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case T-75/01 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-185/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/125)                                                        (2002/C 144/126)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 January 2002 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 28 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-75/01: Systems-Europe S.A. v Commission of the European                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-185/01:
Communities.                                                             Dominique Ramaekers v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                         munities.
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.