title: Case T-413/12: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Post Invest Europe Sàrl v European Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to De Post-La Poste (now bpost) — Compensation for public service costs — Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Offers of further evidence)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/81

         Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Post Invest Europe Sàrl v European Commission
   (Case T-413/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to De Post-La Poste (now bpost) - Compensation for public service costs - Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Offers of further evidence)
   2013/C 225/181
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Invest Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Articles 2 and 5 to 7 of Commission Decision 2012/321/EU of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C-20/09) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost) (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Belgium.

               3.

               Post Invest Europe Sàrl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case T-309/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Klein v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Directive 93/42/EEC — Harmonised system for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices — Article 8 — Notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market — No position adopted by the Commission — Article 18 — Wrongful CE marking — Harm — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Klein v Commission
   (Case T-309/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Directive 93/42/EEC - Harmonised system for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices - Article 8 - Notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market - No position adopted by the Commission - Article 18 - Wrongful CE marking - Harm - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link))
   (2016/C 410/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented initially by: H.-J. Ahlt and M. Ahlt, and subsequently by: H.-J. Ahlt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, and C. Winkler, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the breach by the Commission of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Christoph Klein, the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-433/07: Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/49

         Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-433/07)
   (2008/C 22/93)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 22 December 2006 followed by a letter of formal notice of 2 August 2007;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               —

               to take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position, after having been invited to do so, under Article 232 EC, on the basis of the applicant's complaint filed on 22 December 2006, regarding unlawful aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services (‘OA/OAS’) following an arbitration ruling of the Greek Supreme Court, ordering the Greek State to pay OA/OAS EUR 563 million for allegedly unpaid services and the cost of relocation to Athens' new airport.
   The applicant puts forward that the difference between the amounts owed by the Greek State to OA/OAS as approximately assessed in Commission Decision 2003/372/EC (1) and the compensation for damages awarded to OA/OAS by the ruling of 20 December 2006 constitutes an advantage within the meaning of state aid rules, granted to the company. The grant of such advantage is attributable, according to the applicant, to the Greek State because the arbitration Court has acted as an organ of the State.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission was under a duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint received in order to either adopt a decision declaring that the State measures did not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or that those measures were to be classified as aid within the meaning of the said provision but were compatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) EC, or to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
   The applicant further submits that the period of seven months which elapsed between the applicant's complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under document number C(2002) 4831) (OJ, L 132, p. 1).


title: Case C-89/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by E.ON Energie AG against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2010 in Case T-141/08 E.ON Energie AG v Commission

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/11

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by E.ON Energie AG against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2010 in Case T-141/08 E.ON Energie AG v Commission
   (Case C-89/11 P)
   2011/C 152/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: E.ON Energie AG (represented by: A. Röhling, F. Dietrich and R. Pfromm, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the contested judgment of the General Court and annul Commission Decision C(2008) 377 final, notified to the appellant on 6 February 2008, in Case COMP/B-1/39.326;

               —

               In the alternative, set aside the contested judgment and annul the decision referred to above in so far as (a) the appellant is ordered to pay a fine, and (b) the appellant is ordered to pay the costs, and uphold the appellant’s claims made at first instance;

               —

               In the further alternative, set aside the contested judgment of the General Court and refer the matter back to the General Court;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant challenges the contested judgment of the General Court, claiming that it should be set aside and that Commission Decision C(2008) 377 final of 30 January 2008 in Case COMP/B-1/39.326 should be annulled. The judgment confirmed a decision by the respondent imposing a fine, in which it was alleged that the appellant had broken a seal apposed by representatives of the respondent in accordance with Article 20(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and thus ‘negligently at least’ infringed Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation No 1/2003. In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on six grounds of appeal:

               1.

               Firstly, the appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court as regards the burden of proof is vitiated by errors in law and thus constitutes an infringement of the principle of the assumption of innocence and the Community law decision-making maxim of in dubio pro reo. In particular, the General Court failed to have regard to the fact that the evidence in the (undisputed) form of the seal apposed to its Shelf Life did not constitute ‘sufficiently meaningful’ proof to show the existence of an infringement.

               2.

               By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons by making an error of characterisation. The General Court failed to have regard, in the context of the reversal of the burden of proof, to the criterion, established originally by itself, of ‘questioning’ the evidentiary weight of the seal by means of the later requirement, taken into consideration in the context of the error of characterisation, of a direct ‘causal connection’ between the aging of the seal and the creation of a false positive result.

               3.

               By its third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that there has been a distortion of evidence by the General Court and thus an infringement of the principles of logic, the general principle of the rule of law and a further infringement of the duty on the General Court to state reasons. In that regard, the appellant submits in particular that the General Court is weighing the evidence of the ‘act documenting apposition of the seal’ on the assumption that it will provide sufficient evidence of the correct apposition of the seal, an explanation which cannot be deduced therefrom.

               4.

               By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that there is a further lack of reasons for the judgment connected with an infringement of the principles of logic. With reference to the further sealing within the appellant’s premises, the General Court also derives, from the functioning of the seal used for that purpose, an illogical deduction as to the functioning of the disputed seal.

               5.

               By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringes the rules of correct evidentiary procedure, the principles of logic and the principle in dubio pro reo. In particular, the General Court erred in law by holding that the submission of the appellant with regard to the condition of the ‘VOID’ lettering on the doorframe was irrelevant and failed to make an inquiry, in breach of the rules of correct evidentiary procedure.

               6.

               By its sixth ground of appeal, finally, the appellant claims that the General Court again infringed the rules of correct evidentiary procedure and the legal principle of proportionality as regards the calculation of the fine. The General Court failed to have regard to the mitigating fact that the respondent itself was the cause of the situation, subsequently no longer able to be clarified, on the day of the search. In addition, with regard to the scope of the effect of the protected goods, the General Court erred in law by failing to take evidence on the essential question of the opening of the door, which is relevant to the gravity of the act and thus to the amount of the fine.


title: Case T-538/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/42

         Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-538/11)
   2011/C 347/75
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, Agents, and by L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04));

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The measures implemented by Belgium do not entail a selective advantage for farmers, slaughterhouses and entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation.


title: Case T-729/14: Action brought on 16 October 2014 — PAN Europe and Unaapi v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/40

         Action brought on 16 October 2014 — PAN Europe and Unaapi v Commission
   (Case T-729/14)
   (2015/C 007/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium); and Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2014, Ares(2014)2589479, notified to the applicants’ representative on 6 August 2014 (the contested decision) in response to the applicants’ request of 10 January 2013 under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (1) (MRLs Regulation) to lower the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for the active substance imidacloprid for honey, pollen and royal jelly; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision the Commission acted not in conformity with the MRLs Regulation, in particular with Article 3 and/or in combination with Article 14(1) and (2)(a), (c) and (d) of the MLRs Regulation, and thus acted illegally.

               —

               The applicants argue that the MRLs Regulation prescribes that animal health should be taken into account by the Commission when deciding on applications under Article 7 of the MRLs Regulation to set or modify an MRL. The Commission thus unlawfully decided to not grant the applicants’ request of the lowering of MRLs for imidacloprid.

               —

               The applicants also submit that according to the definition of an MRL in Article 3(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation, MRLs are to be based on ‘the lowest consumer exposure necessary to protect vulnerable consumers’ and on ‘good agricultural practice’ (GAP). From the Articles 3(2) and 4(1) second paragraph and from Article 14 (2) (a) and (d) derives that the Commission should have taken into account, when taking the contested decision, the scientific and technical knowledge available on the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees and honeybee colonies. It also derives from these provisions — and in particular from Article 14(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation — that the Commission unlawfully did not take into account in the contested decision the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 (2), as a decision ‘to modify the uses of plant protection products’.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, OJ L 70, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances, OJ L 139, p. 12.


C 166/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.5.98
decision of 26Ð27 January 1998 (the Decision') to issue            Ð it was given no opportunity to make representations
a regulation (the Regulation) which purports to reclassify              concerning the Regulation before the Nomenclature
for customs duty purposes a product imported by VTech                   Committee; and
from China known as the Smart Start Premier'. The
purported effect of the Regulation is to classify the Smart
                                                                    Ð the Decision effectively overturns the decisions of the
Start Premier for customs duty purposes as a toy' as
                                                                        Tribunal which is the duly constituted court
opposed to a game'.
                                                                        established by the United Kingdom. In so doing, it
The applicant submits in this regard that prior to the                  infringes the principles of legitimate expectations and
Commission's decision in this case it had twice                         legal certainty.
successfully appealed to the Value Added Tax and Duties
Tribunal in the United Kingdom against decisions of HM
Customs and Excise that products sold by the company
should be classified as toys'. Following the outcome of
those proceedings, the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature
Section (T&SNS) of the Customs Code Committee of the                        Removal from the register of Case T-7/97 (1)
Commission considered the Smart Start Premier, a similar
product marketed by VTech, and announced its intention                                       (98/C 166/48)
to issue the Regulation.
The applicant submits that, in adopting the Decision, the           By order of 25 March 1998 the President of the First
Commission acted in breach of the EC Treaty, in                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
particular Articles 28 and 29, and of the Community                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Customs Code, and also in breach of Community law, as               Case T-7/97: Miguel Vicente-NunÄez v Commission of the
regards both substance and procedure.                               European Communities.
It understands that the Commission has referred to the              (1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
Harmonised System Explanatory Notes (HSEN) as a
justification for the Regulation's classifyng the product as
an educational toy'. It submits that the HSEN do not
have binding force and that they cannot override the
provisions of the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) and its
General Interpretative Rules. Accordingly, inasmuch as the
Commission is purporting to classify a product in breach                  Removal from the register of Case T-170/97 (1)
of the Community Customs Code it is thereby also                                             (98/C 166/49)
purporting to alter autonomously the duties in the CCT
and acting in breach of Article 28 of the EC Treaty which
expressly provides that any such alteration of duties can           By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fourth
only be decided by the Council.                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
From a procedural point of view, the applicant submits
                                                                    Case T-170/97: MichaeÈl Tavernier v European Court of
that:
                                                                    Auditors.
Ð the reasons for the issue of the Regulation have not
    been adequately explained;                                      (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.


title: Case T-52/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Annual leave — Half-time secondment for union representation — Unauthorised absence — Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-52/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Annual leave - Half-time secondment for union representation - Unauthorised absence - Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)
   2011/C 38/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09 Lebedef v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, with the request that the order be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Giorgio Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 113 of 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-279/07: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2010 — France v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/50

         Order of the General Court of 23 March 2010 — France v Commission
   (Case T-279/07) (1)

   2010/C 148/81

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-456/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina SpA (Copyright — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4(1) — Distribution to the public by sale or otherwise of the original of a work or a copy thereof — Use of reproductions of copyright-protected furniture as items of furniture exhibited in a sales area and in display windows — No transfer of ownership or possession)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina SpA
   (Case C-456/06) (1)

   (Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution to the public by sale or otherwise of the original of a work or a copy thereof - Use of reproductions of copyright-protected furniture as items of furniture exhibited in a sales area and in display windows - No transfer of ownership or possession)
   (2008/C 142/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG

      Defendant: Cassina SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Use, without the consent of the copyright holder, of reproductions of copyright-protected items of furniture as furnishings arranged in a sales area and for decorative display purposes — Whether such use, which does not involve any form of transfer of ownership or possession, does or does not constitute a ‘form of distribution to the public’
   Operative part of the judgment
   The concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object. As a result, neither granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright nor exhibiting to the public those reproductions without actually granting a right to use them can constitute such a form of distribution.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-173/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU)

text:
C 204/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
    protection of the national construction industry and the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
    reduction in national unemployment for the purpose of                Oikeus by order of that court of 27 April 1999 in the case
    preventing social tension, consistent with Community law?            of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and Pentti Juntunen
2. Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom
    to provide services under the EC Treaty if a domestic                                         (Case C-172/99)
    employer can pay less than the minimum wage laid down
    in a collective agreement declared to be generally binding                                    (1999/C 204/52)
    by concluding a collective agreement specific to one
    undertaking (and enjoying precedence), whereas this is
    — at least in fact — not possible for a non-German EC                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    employer in the case where he proposes to post workers               European Communities by an order of the Korkein Oikeus
    to the Federal Republic of Germany?                                  (Supreme Court), Finland, of 27 April 1999, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and
                                                                         Pentti Juntunen on the following question:
                                                                         Is a situation in which the operation of bus routes passes from
                                                                         one bus undertaking to another as a consequence of a
                                                                         tender procedure under Directive 92/50/EEC on public service
Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Commission of the                    contracts (1) to be regarded as a transfer of a business for the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                     purposes of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC (2)?
                          (Case C-168/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                             coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                          (1999/C 204/51)                                    contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May                    safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          undertakings, businesses or arts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
                                                                             5.3.1977, p. 26).
represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or
    communicate all the laws, regulations and administrative             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
    96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating                  (Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999,
    Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of                  in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
    veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and              Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertain-
    certain animal products and amending Directives                          ment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU)
    90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (1), the Kingdom of Spain
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                                                                                (Case C-173/99)
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the High Court of
The mandatory nature of the provisions ot the third paragraph            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article l0 of the EC           Office), of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary            Registry on 10 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic            of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.             Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and
That period, which is laid down in Article 4 of the directive,           Theatre Union (BECTU), on the following questions:
expired on 1 July 1997 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                         1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the conditions for
                                                                              entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by
(1) OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1.                                                      national legislation and/or practice’ in Article 7 of Council
                                                                              Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
                                                                              certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ
                                                                              1993 L 307, p. 18: ‘the Working Time Directive’) to be
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 204/29
     interpreted as permitting a Member State to enact national           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     legislation under which:                                             Administratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First
                                                                          Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 11 May
     (a) a worker does not begin to accrue rights to the paid             1999 in the case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des
         annual leave specified in Article 7 (or to derive any                          Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire
         benefits consequent thereon) until he has completed
         a qualifying period of employment with the same                                            (Case C-177/99)
         employer; but
                                                                                (1999/C 204/55)
     (b) once that qualifying period has been completed, his
         employment during the qualifying period is taken into
         account for the purposes of computing his leave                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         entitlement?                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admi-
                                                                          nistratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First Chamber),
                                                                          France, of 11 May 1999, which was received at the Court
2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what are the factors             Registry on 17 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
     that the national court should take into account in order            case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
     to determine whether a particular qualifying period of               Maine-et-Loire, on the following question:
     employment with the same employer is lawful and pro-
     portionate? In particular, is it legitimate for a Member State
     to take into account the cost for employers of conferring            ‘Are the provisions of the Decision of 28 July 1989 of the
     the rights on those workers who are employed for less                Council of the European Communities (1) authorising the
     than the qualifying period?                                          French Government to derogate from the limit imposed by the
                                                                          Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 and
                                                                          to extend to third parties exclusions of expenditure on
                                                                          accommodation, restaurants, hospitality and entertainment
                                                                          from the right to deduct tax compatible, first, with the
                                                                          objectives of the Sixth Directive and in particular Article 27
                                                                          thereof which stases that “the Council, acting unanimously on
                                                                          a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member
                                                                          State to introduce special measures for derogation from the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil de                      provisions of this directive, in order to simplify the procedure
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber),                     for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax
by judgment of that tribunal of 14 April 1999 in the case                 evasion or avoidance”, and, second, with the principle of
of Didier Mayeur aginst APIM Association Promotion de                     proportionality between the tax objective pursued and the
                     l’Information Messine                                means employed?’
                         (Case C-175/99)                                  (1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the
                                                                              French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second
                                                                              subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC
                         (1999/C 204/54)                                      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                              to turnover taxes (OJ L 239, p. 21).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil de
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber) of
14 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 11 May
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Didier Mayeur
against APIM Association Promotion de l’Information Messine.
The Labour Tribunal, Metz, Miscellaneous Activities Chamber,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksge-
requests the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following           richt Bregenz by order of that court of 29 December 1998
question:                                                                  in the land registration case of Doris Salzmann née Greif
‘Is Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approxi-                                        (Case C-178/99)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of                                      (1999/C 204/56)
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (1) applicable
where the activity of a legal person governed by private law is           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
transferred to a legal person governed by public law? Must                European Communities by an order of the Bezirksgericht
application of that directive be excluded where the activity is           Bregenz (District Court, Bregenz), Austria, of 29 December
transferred to a public service of an administrative nature?’             1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 May
                                                                          1999, for a preliminary ruling in the land registration case of
                                                                          Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 61 of 5.3.1977, p. 26.
                                                                          1. May nationals of a Member State of the European Union
                                                                               rely on free movement of capital even if a capital trans-
                                                                               action has no transnational element?


title: Case T-281/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Visser's Oliehandel Horst v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Visser's Oliehandel Horst v Commission
   (Case T-281/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/57)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-453/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Halil Ibrahim Özçelik (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 8(1)(c) — Concept of ‘arrest warrant’ — Autonomous concept of EU law — National arrest warrant issued by a police service and confirmed by a public prosecutor for the purpose of criminal proceedings)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Halil Ibrahim Özçelik
   (Case C-453/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - Concept of ‘arrest warrant’ - Autonomous concept of EU law - National arrest warrant issued by a police service and confirmed by a public prosecutor for the purpose of criminal proceedings))
   (2017/C 014/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Party to the main proceedings

   Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a confirmation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the public prosecutor’s office, of a national arrest warrant issued previously by a police service in connection with criminal proceedings constitutes a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case T-475/12: Action brought on 29 October 2012 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/41

         Action brought on 29 October 2012 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)
   (Case T-475/12)
   2013/C 9/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: LaserSoft Imaging AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by J. Hunnekuhl, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2012 and 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4) in so far as they rejected the applicant’s trade mark application of 29 August 2011 and order the defendant to register the word mark ‘WorkflowPilot’ in the trade mark register of the Office for Harmonisation for the Internal Market in accordance with the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WorkflowPilot’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 223 774

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-267/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2008 — SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten v Finanzamt Klagenfurt

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2008 — SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten v Finanzamt Klagenfurt
   (Case C-267/08)
   (2008/C 247/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten

      Defendant: Finanzamt Klagenfurt
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (the Sixth Directive) to be interpreted in such a way that ‘external advertising’ by the legally independent provincial organisation of a political party, taking the form of publicity, information provision, the staging of party events, the supply of advertising material to district organisations and the organisation and holding of an annual ball (the SPÖ Ball), is to be regarded as an economic activity if revenue is obtained from (partially) passing the expense of the ‘external advertising’ on to the likewise legally independent party structures (district organisations etc.) and from entrance fees from the holding of the ball?

               2.

               In the assessment of whether there is ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive, is it prejudicial that the activities mentioned in Question 1 are also ‘reflected’ back to the provincial organisation and hence are beneficial to it too? It is in the nature of things that as a result of those activities the party as such and its political objectives and views are always also being publicised, if not in the forefront, nevertheless as an inevitable side effect.

               3.

               Can there still be ‘economic activity’ in the above sense where the expenditure on ‘external advertising’ persistently exceeds many times over the revenue obtained from that activity by passing on the expense and the revenue obtained from holding the ball?

               4.

               Is there an ‘economic activity’ even where the passing on of the expense does not take place according to readily ascertainable economic criteria (e.g. allocation of charges according to cause or benefit) and it is essentially left to the subordinate organisations to determine whether and to what extent they wish to contribute to the expenditure of the provincial organisations?

               5.

               Is there an ‘economic activity’ even where advertising services are invoiced to the subordinate organisations in the form of a charge the amount of which is determined firstly by the number of members in the relevant local organisation and secondly by the number of members it sends to representative assemblies?

               6.

               In determining whether there is economic activity, should subsidies from public funds which do not form part of the taxable consideration (such as, for example, the financing of parties under the Carinthian Parteienförderungsgesetz (Law on the financing of parties) be taken into consideration as it were as economic advantages?

               7.

               If the ‘external advertising’, viewed in isolation, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive, does the fact that publicity and election advertising is a central feature of the activity of political parties and a condition sine qua non for the implementing of political objectives and programmes preclude such activity from being classified as an ‘economic activity’?

               8.

               Are the activities performed by the appellant and described by it as ‘external advertising’ of such a nature as to be comparable with, or correspond in content to, activities carried out by commercial advertising agencies for the purposes of Annex D (number 10) of the Sixth Directive? If that question is answered affirmatively, can the extent of the activities be described as ‘not insignificant’ in the context of the revenue/expenditure structure prevailing at the material time for the purposes of the appeal?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


9.9.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 259/31
       Removal from the register of Case T-85/95 (1)                              Removal from the register of Case T-176/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/55)                                                            (2000/C 259/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the First Chamber
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/95:                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
DIR International Film S.r.l. and Others v Commission of the               has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-176/99
European Communities.                                                      Q. v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ No C 137 of 3.6.95.                                                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
        Removal from the register of Case T-8/98 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-343/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/56)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/59)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber,
Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                      By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
register of Case T-8/98 Siderca S.A.I.C. v Commission of the               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                      has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-343/99
                                                                           Hans-Werner Schmidt v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
       Removal from the register of Case T-80/98 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/57)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-108/00 R
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/60)
By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                    (Language of the case: French)
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-80/98 CIT
Belgique S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                           By order of 3 July 2000 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-108/00
                                                                           R Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.


title: Case T-457/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/47

         Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA
   (Case T-457/07)
   (2008/C 51/87)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of EFSA to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order EFSA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of IT consultancy assistance (OJ 2007/S 97-118626). The applicant contests the defendant's decision of 1 October 2007 to reject the applicant's bid and to award the contract to another tenderer.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that EFSA failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and, in particular, inform the applicant of the relative merits of the successful tenderer. According to the applicant, EFSA mixed selection criteria with award criteria when evaluating the bids and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that EFSA committed manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case F-35/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2010 — Adriaansen v European Investment Bank

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2010 — Adriaansen v European Investment Bank
   (Case F-35/10) (1)

   2011/C 46/31
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 54.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 February 2003 in Case C-492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Commission Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999 amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption — Prohibition on the importation of caviar from Kazakhstan — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly unfounded)

text:
7.6.2003                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/7
obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),                    — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the                         mans, President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr
Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                      (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April                  Registrar, made an order on 6 February 2003, the operative
2003, in which it:                                                              part of which is as follows:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,         1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
      to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament               2.    Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                    (1 ) OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-87/03)
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2003/C 135/11)
                            (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 6 February 2003                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
in Case C-492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v                                   by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                             service in Luxembourg.
(Commission Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
countries from which the import of fishery products is
authorised for human consumption — Prohibition on the                           —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 (1) of
importation of caviar from Kazakhstan — Non-contractual                               20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing oppor-
liability of the Community — Appeal partly manifestly                                 tunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks
                inadmissible and partly unfounded)                                    and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community
                                                                                waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch
                                                                                limitations are required, in so far as it allocates certain
                             (2003/C 135/10)                                          quotas to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of
                                                                                the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                —     order the Council to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: on
In Case 492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established in                             completion of the transitional period on 31 December
Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer —                                2002, the situation of Spanish fishermen is the same as
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                         that of fishermen of the remaining Member States and
the European Communities, Fifth Chamber, of 23 October                                they should enjoy equal access to waters and resources.
2001 in Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen v Commission                                 However, by the contested regulation, Spanish fishermen
[2001] ECR II-3143, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                          are treated differently, since they are not allowed to fish
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                            in the waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea for
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejhar)                            virtually all the species subject to quotas.


title: Case C-415/06: Order of the Court of 6 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law — Free movement of capital — Taxation on income — Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State — Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/29

         Order of the Court of 6 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann
   (Case C-415/06) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law - Free movement of capital - Taxation on income - Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State - Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments)
   (2008/C 51/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties

      Applicant: Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC — Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country — Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country
   Operative part of the order
   A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results, cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving such an establishment in a non-Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.


title: Case T-239/16: Action brought on 12 May 2016 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/47

         Action brought on 12 May 2016 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)
   (Case T-239/16)
   (2016/C 243/53)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, legal adviser)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘perlage’ — application for registration no 13 472 899

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 1129/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case T-493/09 P: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Y v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Contract agents — Dismissal — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/24

         Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Y v Commission
   (Case T-493/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Contract agents - Dismissal - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 211/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented originally by J.-P. Keppenne and L. Lozano Palacios, and then by J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-29/08 Y v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Y is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-510/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 68/414/EEC — Article 1(1) — Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of petroleum products — Breach)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-510/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 68/414/EEC - Article 1(1) - Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of petroleum products - Breach)
   (2008/C 223/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance with the obligation to stock petroleum products under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1968 II, p. 586), as amended and then codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8) — Nature and extent of the obligation to stock — Discrepancy between the figures transmitted by the Member State concerned and the data provided by Eurostat — Method of calculating stocks of petroleum products and the level of internal consumption of those products.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2 of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-457/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Fakro v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/30

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Fakro v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)
   (Case T-457/15)
   (2015/C 328/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fakro Sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘climaVera’ — Community trade mark No 1 152 1366

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 2095/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision in its entirety and refer the case back to OHIM for reconsideration;

               —

               award the costs of the proceedings and representation to the applicant in accordance with the prescribed rules.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v X (C-199/12), Y (C-200/12), Z v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-201/12) (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards relating to the conditions for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 10(1)(d) — Membership of a particular social group — Sexual orientation — Reason for persecution — Article 9(1) — Concept of ‘persecution’ — Well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of membership of a particular social group — Acts sufficiently serious to justify such a fear — Legislation criminalising homosexual acts — Article 4 — Individual assessment of the facts and circumstances)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v X (C-199/12), Y (C-200/12), Z v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-201/12)
   (Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards relating to the conditions for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 10(1)(d) - Membership of a particular social group - Sexual orientation - Reason for persecution - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘persecution’ - Well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of membership of a particular social group - Acts sufficiently serious to justify such a fear - Legislation criminalising homosexual acts - Article 4 - Individual assessment of the facts and circumstances)
   2014/C 9/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Z

      Defendants: X (C-199/12), Y (C-200/12), Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-201/12)

      Intervening party: Hoog Commissariaat van de Verenigde Naties voor de Vluchtelingen (C-199/12 to C-201/12)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Arts 9(1)(a) and (2)(c) and Article 10(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Grant of refugee status — Conditions — Reasons for persecution — Homosexuality — Concept of particular social group — Legislation of the country of origin providing for imprisonment of not less than 10 years in the case of homosexual relationships

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or Stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of criminal laws, such as those at issue in each of the cases in the main proceedings, which specifically target homosexuals, supports the finding that those persons must be regarded as forming a particular social group.

               2.

               Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/83, read together with Article 9(2)(c) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the criminalisation of homosexual acts per se does not constitute an act of persecution. However, a term of imprisonment which sanctions homosexual acts and which is actually applied in the country of origin which adopted such legislation must be regarded as being a punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory and thus constitutes an act of persecution.

               3.

               Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2004/83, read together with Article 2(c) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that only homosexual acts which are criminal in accordance with the national law of the Member States are excluded from its scope. When assessing an application for refugee status, the competent authorities cannot reasonably expect, in order to avoid the risk of persecution, the applicant for asylum to conceal his homosexuality in his country of origin or to exercise reserve in the expression of his sexual orientation.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case T-364/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark B! O — Earlier Community word mark bo — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)
   (Case T-364/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark B! O - Earlier Community word mark bo - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 111/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Penny-Markt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, A. Pohlmann, subsequently, S. Hanne, and lastly, A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Boquoi Handels OHG (Straelen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mels, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2014 (R 1201/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Boquoi Handels OHG and Penny-Markt GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Penny-Markt GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-84/13 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2013 by Electrabel SA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-332/09 Electrabel v Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/6

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2013 by Electrabel SA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-332/09 Electrabel v Commission
   (Case C-84/13 P)
   2013/C 129/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Electrabel SA (represented by: M. Pittie and P. Honoré, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               in consequence, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders Electrabel to pay a fine in the amount of EUR 20 million;

               —

               in consequence:

                           —

                           either refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision,

                           —

                           or give final judgment granting the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance and annulling the decision at issue in so far as it orders Electrabel to pay a fine in the amount of EUR 20 million or significantly reducing the amount of that fine;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three pleas in law in support of its appeal against the judgment by which the General Court affirmed the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2009 ordering Electrabel to pay a fine of EUR 20 million for infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1) on the control of concentrations.
   In the first place, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the provisions of Article 14(3) of the aforementioned regulation, in that it accepted the alleged ‘duration’ of the infringement as a factor relevant to the setting of the amount of the fine, whereas that article provides that the amount of the fine must be set solely on the basis of the ‘nature’ and ‘gravity’ of the infringement.
   In the second place, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to have regard to the principle that the law should not be retroactive, in that it applied the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) to a concentration that predated the entry into force of that regulation, and which was therefore covered by the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.
   Lastly, the appellant takes the view that the General Court erred in law and that its reasons were contradictory, in that it categorised the infringement that Electrabel was found to have committed as continuous, whereas it was a one-off infringement.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case T-549/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014  — Natura Selection v OHIM — Afoi Anezoulaki (natur) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark natur — Earlier application for the figurative mark natura — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Afoi Anezoulaki (natur)
   (Case T-549/10) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark natur - Earlier application for the figurative mark natura - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 007/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Natura Selection, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Afoi Anezoulaki AE (Kilikis, Greece)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2010 (Case R 217/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and Afoi Anezoulaki AE.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 September 2010 (Case R 217/2010-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case T-25/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  — Alliance One International v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/50

         Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Alliance One International v Commission
   (Case T-25/06)
   (2006/C 60/93)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alliance One International, Inc. (Danville, USA) [represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, lawyers]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1.1(a) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final, of 20 October 2005, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Italy) insofar as it relates to SCC, Dimon Inc. and Alliance One;

               —

               accordingly reduce the fines imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia- Mindo so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the latest financial year;

               —

               alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia- Mindo as the multiplying factor is not applicable;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested Decision the Commission found that several companies, including the applicant and its subsidiaries, Transcatab and Dimon Italia, later renamed Mindo, infringed Article 81(1) EC by way of agreements and/or concerted practices in the Italian raw tobacco sector.
   The applicant requests the partial annulment of this Decision arguing, firstly, that by holding it jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by its subsidiaries, the Commission breached the rules regulating responsibility of parent companies. The applicant contests in this context the arguments and the evidence cited by the Commission in support of its finding.
   The applicant also considers that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) by imposing fines which exceed 10 % of the total turnover of its subsidiaries.
   Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission should not have applied a multiplying factor to its subsidiaries as this was not justified on the basis of the parties' turnovers and the Commission's decisional practice. It further argues that the multiplying factor applied to it is higher than that applied to another undertaking leading to an evident violation of proportionality and lack of reasoning. The applicant also submits that the reasoning for the application of a multiplying factor to Mindo is inconsistent as it applies different criteria to determine the same fine.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 04/01/2003 p. 1.


title: Case C-77/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Austria) — Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen (Export refund — Differentiated refund — Time of the submission of the request — Export declaration — No proof of clearance for release for consumption in the destination country — Penalty)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Austria) — Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
   (Case C-77/08) (1)

   (Export refund - Differentiated refund - Time of the submission of the request - Export declaration - No proof of clearance for release for consumption in the destination country - Penalty)
   2009/C 113/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH

      Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Interpretation of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as regards the recovery of amounts unduly paid and sanctions (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57) — Concept of the request for the differentiated part of the export refund — Imposition of the penalty in the event of incorrect information with regard to the destination country featuring in the export declaration

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a differentiated refund, the differentiated part of the refund is requested not at the time of presentation of the application provided for in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 or of the documents relating to payment of the refund provided for in Article 47(2) of that regulation, but as soon as the document referred to in Article 3(5) of the regulation is presented. The inclusion in that document of information capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable and which is found to be incorrect gives rise, as a result, subject to the cases laid down in the third and seventh subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of that regulation, to the imposition of the penalty prescribed in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1).

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-487/10: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes (France)) — L’Océane Immobilière SAS v Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes (France)) — L’Océane Immobilière SAS v Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest
   (Case C-487/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/62
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-162/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland made on 7 April 2010 — Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland and the Attorney General

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/28

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland made on 7 April 2010 — Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland and the Attorney General
      (Case C-162/10)
      (2010/C 161/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Ireland

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd

         Defendant: Ireland and the Attorney General

         Questions referred

                  (i)

                  Is a hotel operator which provides in guest bedrooms televisions and/or radios to which it distributes a broadcast signal a ‘user’ making a ‘communication to the public’ of a phonogram which may be played in a broadcast for the purposes of Article 8(2) of Codified Directive 2006/115/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 12th December 2006?

                  (ii)

                  If the answer to paragraph (i) is in the affirmative, does Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC oblige Member States to provide a right to payment of equitable remuneration from the hotel operator in addition to equitable remuneration from the broadcaster for the playing of the phonogram?

                  (iii)

                  If the answer to paragraph (i) is in the affirmative, does Article 10 of Directive 2006/115/EC permit Member States to exempt hotel operators from the obligation to pay ‘a single equitable remuneration’ on the grounds of ‘private use’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(a)?

                  (iv)

                  Is a hotel operator which provides in a guest bedroom apparatus (other than a television or radio) and phonograms in physical or digital form which may be played on or heard from such apparatus a ‘user’ making a ‘communication to the public’ of the phonograms within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC?

                  (v)

                  If the answer to paragraph (iv) is in the affirmative, does Article 10 of Directive 2006/115/EC permit Member States to exempt hotel operators from the obligation to pay ‘a single equitable remuneration’ on the grounds of ‘private use’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115/EC?

         (1)  Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version)
      OJ L 376, p. 28


title: Case T-279/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  10 May 2006  — Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Community project relating to a global satellite radio navigation system (Galileo) — Harm alleged by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word  Galileo  — Liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by its bodies — Unusual and special damage)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2006 — Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission
   (Case T-279/03) (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Community project relating to a global satellite radio navigation system (Galileo) - Harm alleged by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word ‘Galileo’ - Liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by its bodies - Unusual and special damage)
   (2006/C 165/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados), Galileo International LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), Galileo Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Galileo Danmark A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark), Galileo Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Galileo España, SA (Madrid, Spain), Galileo France SARL (Roissy-en-France, France), Galileo Nederland BV (Hoofdorp, Netherlands), Galileo Nordiska AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Galileo Portugal Ltd (Alges, Portugal), Galileo Sigma Srl (Rome, Italy), Galileo International Ltd (Langley, Berkshire, United Kingdom), The Galileo Co. (London, United Kingdom) and Timas Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: C. Delcorde, J.-N. Louis, J.-A. Delcorde and S. Maniatopoulos, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Rasmussen and M. Huttunen, Agents, assisted by A. Berenboom and N. Van den Bossche, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for (i) an order prohibiting the Commission from using the word 'Galileo' in connection with the Community project relating to a global satellite radio navigation system and from encouraging third parties to use that word and (ii) compensation for the applicants for the damage which they claim to have suffered owing to the use of and promotion by the Commission of that word, which they allege to be identical to trade marks registered by the applicants and also to their business names
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003