title: Case C-392/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2013 — Andrés Rabal Cañas v Nexea Gestión Documental, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2013 — Andrés Rabal Cañas v Nexea Gestión Documental, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-392/13)
   2013/C 260/65
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33, Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrés Rabal Cañas

      Defendants: Nexea Gestión Documental, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Questions referred

               1.

               Given that it includes within its ambit all ‘dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned’, according to the numerical threshold provided for, must the notion of ‘collective redundancies’ in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 (1) be interpreted — in view of its Community scope — as prohibiting or precluding a national implementing or transposing provision that restricts the ambit of that notion solely to particular types of termination, namely, those based on ‘economic, technical, organisational or production grounds’, as Article 51(1) of the Workers’ Statute does?

               2.

               For the purposes of calculating the number of dismissals to be taken into account in order to determine whether it is a case of ‘collective redundancies’, as defined in Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59, in the form of either ‘dismissals effected by an employer’ (subparagraph (a)) or ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned. provided that there are at least five redundancies’ (subparagraph (b)), must account be taken of individual terminations by reason of the expiry of fixed-term contracts (on the basis of an agreed date, task or service), as referred to in Article 49(1)(c) of the Workers’ Statute?

               3.

               For the purposes of the rule on the non-application of Directive 98/59 laid down in Article [1(2)(a)] thereof, is the concept of ‘collective redundancies effected under contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks’ defined exclusively by the strictly quantitative criterion in Article [1(1)(a)] or does it require the cause of the collective termination also to be derived from the same collective contractual framework for the same duration, service or task?

               4.

               Does the concept of ‘establishment’, as an essential Community law concept for the purposes of defining ‘collective redundancies’ in the context of Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59, and in view of the nature of the directive of a minimum standard as provided in Article 5 thereof, lend itself to an interpretation that allows the national provision implementing or transposing that text into the national legal order, Article 51(1) of the Workers’ Statute in the case of Spain, to relate the ambit of the calculation of the numerical threshold exclusively to the ‘undertaking’ as a whole, thereby excluding situations in which, had the ‘establishment’ been taken as the reference unit, the numerical threshold laid down in that article would have been exceeded?

      (1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16)


title: Case F-130/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/52

         Action brought on 1 October 2015 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-130/15)
   (2016/C 016/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase in respect of 2015 in the Annual Salary Review procedure and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Executive Board’s decision, adopted on 24 February 2015 and communicated to staff on 13 March 2015, not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase in respect of 2015;

               —

               annul the decision dated 10 July 2014 and received on 20 July 2014 rejecting the special appeal;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department not to consider or propose the applicant for an ASA, impliedly communicated by the Executive Board’s decision of 24 February 2015 and by the decision dated 10 July 2015 rejecting the special appeal;

               —

               order the payment of compensation to the applicant in respect of the material harm consisting in the loss of an opportunity of obtaining an ASA in 2015, assessed at EUR 49 102, or, in the alternative, annul the procedure which led to the decision of 24 February 2015 and order the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for the grant of additional salary increases in respect of 2015;

               —

               order the payment of compensation to the applicant in respect of the non-material harm incurred, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-130/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
   (Case C-130/05)
   (2005/C 143/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry (Netherlands) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Coxon and Chatterton Limited and Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC (1) be so interpreted that the objection to the redispatch of a consignment that does not satisfy the import conditions lies in the non-satisfaction of the Community conditions for import or in the conditions that apply at the destination outside the territories listed in Annex I to Directive 97/78/EC agreed with the person responsible for the load?

               2.

               Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC (2), be so interpreted that in all cases in which any one of the checks provided for in Directive 97/78/EC indicates that a consignment of products is likely to constitute a danger to animal or human health this provision imperatively requires the destruction of the consignments of animal products concerned?

               3.

               Must Article 22 of Directive 97/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC, be so interpreted that the mere fact that residues of a substance listed in Annex V to Regulation 2377/90/EC are found in a consignment means that the consignment in question is likely to constitute such a danger to animal or human health as to preclude redispatch?

               4

               If the second question is answered in the negative, must Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC be so interpreted that it also serves to protect the interests of the third country into which, after redispatch, the consignment is to be imported, even if those interests do not also involve the protection of an interest that can be located in Member States of the EU?

      (1)  Council Directive of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Regulation of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, p. 1).


title: Case T-46/03: Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.4.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 83/27
On 30 May 1997 a contract was concluded between one of                   Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A.
the applicants, Lurgi SpA, and the coordinator of the project,                against Commission of the European Communities
Bioelettrica, relating to the construction of a plant for the
atmospheric gasification of biomass. During the engineering
works, the applicant identified certain technical difficulties.                                    (Case T-46/03)
These difficulties were brought to the attention of the Com-
mission and the other contractors.                                                                 (2003/C 83/57)
On 6 September 2001, the Commission notified Bioelettrica                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
that it was terminating the contract because of the failure to
commence the works under the THERMIE contract. Bioelettrica
contested this termination of the contract before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-287/01, Bioelettrica/Commission.                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A.,
On 23 July 2002, the Commission sent a further notice                    represented by Giovanni Vezzoli and Gianluca Belotti, lawyers.
indicating that it would terminate the contract due to non-
performance by the contractors unless they performed their
obligations within 30 days. The Commission mainly criticised             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the delays of the project. In a letter dated 26 November
2002, the Commission stated that it considered the contract
terminated. This termination of the contract is being contested          —     principally, annul the contested decision;
in the present case.
                                                                         —     or, alternatively, reduce the fine imposed,
In support of their application, the applicants invoke an                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
infringement of the formal requirements in the decision
making procedure of the Commission. According to the
applicants, all acts of the Commission have to be taken under
the principle of collegiality as set forth in Article 219 of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
EC Treaty and Article 1 of the procedural rules of the
Commission ( 1). The applicants submit that the decision termi-
nating the contract had a substantial financial impact for               This action is directed against the same decision as that
the contractors and involves a difficult technical and legal
                                                                         contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. The pleas
assessment of the contract and its purpose. Therefore, the
                                                                         in law and main arguments are similar to those in the
applicants claim that the decision to terminate the contract             abovementioned case.
could not be considered as an execution of an act at an
administrative or management level and that the decision had
to be taken by the College of Commissioners.
Furthermore, the applicants invoke the wrongful application
of the THERMIE contract. The applicants submit in this respect
that there is no justification for a termination of the contract
for non-performance by the contractors. According to the                         Removal from the register of Case T-187/94 (1)
applicants, this provision is not applicable when there are
reasonable technical or economic grounds for non-perform-
ance. In the present case, there was a need to make modifi-                                        (2003/C 83/58)
cations to the original technology causing serious economic
risks.                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Finally, the applicants submit that the behaviour of the
Commission prevents the Commission from invoking non-
performance as a ground for termination of the contract. In              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the First
this respect, the applicants invoke Article 1460 of the Italian          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Civil Code and the principle inadimplenti non est adim-                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
plentum.                                                                 T-187/94: Theresia Rudolf v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) Rules of Procedure of the Commission [C(2000) 3614] (OJ L 308
     of 8 December 2000, p. 26).                                         (1 ) OJ C 174 of 25.6.1994.


title: Case C-422/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Industrias Alen SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (Cloralex)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/14

         Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Industrias Alen SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (Cloralex)
   (Case C-422/12 P)
   2012/C 379/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Industrias Alen SA de CV (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, abogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: The Clorox Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11;

               —

               uphold the decision adopted on 16 December 2010 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, consequently, reject the opposition lodged by THE CLOROX COMPANY;

               —

               order THE CLOROX COMPANY, the opponent, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (1) on the Community trade mark (‘the CTMR’).

               —

               Error of the General Court in the comparison of the signs CLOROX and CLORALEX.

               —

               Error of the General Court in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

               —

               Current coexistence in OHIM’s register of the term CLOR in Classes 3 and 5.

               —

               Agreements for co-existence of the marks concluded by the parties in relation to the marks CLOROX/CLORALEX in other countries.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Case F-72/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/55

         Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-72/15)
   (2015/C 279/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights to the EU’s pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare unlawful and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of 26 May 2014, accepted on 11 July 2014, to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions, in accordance with the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case C-561/16 (OJ C 22, 23.1.2017)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/32

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case C-561/16
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 22 of 23 January 2017
      )
   (2017/C 070/42)
   The Notice in Case C-561/16 Saras Energía should read as follows:

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saras Energía S.A.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Other parties: Endesa SA, Endesa Energía SA, Endesa Energía XXI SLU, Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SAU, Nexus Energía SA, Nexus Renovables SLU, Engie España SL, Villar Mir Energía SL, Energya VM Gestión de Energía y Estaciones de Servicio de Guipúzcoa SA.

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Is legislation of a Member State establishing a national energy efficiency obligation scheme whose main method of compliance consists in an annual financial contribution to an Energy Efficiency National Fund established under the provisions of Article 20(4) of Directive 2012/27/EU (1) compatible with Article 7(1) and (9) of that directive?

               (2)

               Is national legislation which provides for the possibility of fulfilling the energy savings obligations through the accreditation of savings as an alternative to the financial contribution to the Energy Efficiency National Fund compatible with Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of Directive 2012/27/EU?

               (3)

               If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the provision of that alternative possibility for the fulfilment of the energy savings obligations compatible with the abovementioned Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of the directive when its actual existence depends on whether the Government establishes it on a discretionary basis through legislation?
               In that respect, is such legislation compatible when the Government does not implement that alternative?

               (4)

               Is a national scheme that regards as parties subject to energy saving obligations only gas and electricity retail companies and wholesalers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases, but not gas and electricity distributors or retailers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases, compatible with Article 7(1) and (4) of the directive?

               (5)

               If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, is the definition of gas and electricity retail companies and wholesalers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases as ‘obligated parties’, without the reasons being determined for gas and electricity distributors and retailers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases not being so defined, compatible with the abovementioned provisions of Article 7?

      (1)  Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1).


title: Case C-164/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12: Aer Lingus Ltd. v European Commission

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/19

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12: Aer Lingus Ltd. v European Commission
   (Case C-164/15 P)
   (2015/C 205/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Aer Lingus Ltd., Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12 Aer Lingus v Commission in so far as it held that Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (1) was annulled in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision; and

               —

               reject the application to annul Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;
               alternatively,

                           —

                           refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

                           —

                           reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   The appellant claims that by creating a new economic test to be applied when determining the amounts to be recovered from beneficiaries of State aid consisting of a tax measure fixing a lower rate by reference to a standard rate, the General Court violated Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2).

      (1)  OJ L 119, p. 30.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, p. 1.


title: Case F-47/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v Parliament (Promotion — 2005 Promotions procedure — Decision on Policy on promotion and on career planning — Procedure for the award of promotion points in the European Parliament — Unlawfulness of instructions governing that procedure — Consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee — Comparative examination of the merits — Discrimination against staff representatives)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v Parliament
   (Case F-47/07) (1)

   (Promotion - 2005 Promotions procedure - Decision on Policy on promotion and on career planning - Procedure for the award of promotion points in the European Parliament - Unlawfulness of instructions governing that procedure - Consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee - Comparative examination of the merits - Discrimination against staff representatives)
   2010/C 24/126
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and R. Ignătescu, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the Parliament not to appoint the applicant to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotions procedure and, second, declaration of the unlawfulness of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament relating to the ‘Policy on promotion and on career planning’ of 6 July 2005 and of the ‘Implementing measures relating to the award of merit points and to promotion’ of 25 July 2005.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007, p. 43.


20150731064616842015/C 270/61292015TFPC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150709454512Case F-29/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4520120150709EN0061452451Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL
   (Case F-29/15) (
         1
      )2015/C 270/61Language of the case: GreekThe President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 146, 4.5.2015, p. 50.


title: Case C-4/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 1(2) and 49 — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Matters excluded — Family law — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 47(1) — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Judgment concerning rights of access which imposes a periodic penalty payment — Enforcement of that penalty payment)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz
   (Case C-4/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 1(2) and 49 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Matters excluded - Family law - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 47(1) - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Judgment concerning rights of access which imposes a periodic penalty payment - Enforcement of that penalty payment))
   (2015/C 363/07)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Christophe Bohez

      Respondent: Ingrid Wiertz

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation does not apply to the enforcement in a Member State of a penalty payment which is imposed in a judgment, given in another Member State, concerning rights of custody and rights of access in order to ensure that the holder of the rights of custody complies with those rights of access.

               2.

               Recovery of a penalty payment — a penalty which the court of the Member State of origin that gave judgment on the merits with regard to rights of access has imposed in order to ensure the effectiveness of those rights — forms part of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access that the penalty safeguards and the latter must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.

               3.

               In the context of Regulation No 2201/2003, a foreign judgment which orders a periodic penalty payment is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T -242/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — Rica Foods v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Rica Foods v Commission
   (Case T -242/01) (1)

   (2006/C 22/45)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 3, 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-105/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — TrekStor v OHIM (iDrive) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iDrive — Prior German word mark IDRIVE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — TrekStor v OHIM (iDrive)
   (Case T-105/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark iDrive - Prior German word mark IDRIVE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: M. Alber and O. Spieker, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Scanlab AG (Puchheim, Germany) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 2330/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Scanlab AG and TrekStor Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the request to stay the proceedings lodged by TrekStor Ltd;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders TrekStor Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case T-238/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Delipapier v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/57

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Delipapier v Commission
   (Case T-238/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Delipapier (Frouard, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sphère France and of Schweitzer SAS.

               3.

               Delipapier is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-26/13: Action brought on 27 March 2013 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/56

         Action brought on 27 March 2013 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-26/13)
   2013/C 207/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appraisal report issued to the applicant in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011;

               —

               order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount 500 Euro — to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested appraisal report;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-413/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Welte-Wenu v OHIM — Commission (EUROPEAN DRIVESHAFT SERVICES) (Community trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Community figurative mark EUROPEAN DRIVESHAFT SERVICES — Absolute ground for refusal — Imitation of the emblem of an international inter-governmental organisation — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6b of the Paris Convention — Content of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Admissibility of new elements — Article 56(2) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Jurisdiction of the Board of Appeal in the case of an action limited to part of the decision of the Cancellation Division)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Welte-Wenu v OHIM — Commission (EUROPEAN DRIVESHAFT SERVICES)
   (Case T-413/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Community figurative mark EUROPEAN DRIVESHAFT SERVICES - Absolute ground for refusal - Imitation of the emblem of an international inter-governmental organisation - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6b of the Paris Convention - Content of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Admissibility of new elements - Article 56(2) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Jurisdiction of the Board of Appeal in the case of an action limited to part of the decision of the Cancellation Division)
   2013/C 55/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Welte-Wenu GmbH (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Kahl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and F.W. Bulst, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2011 (Case R 1590/2010-1) concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between the European Commission and Welte-Wenu GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 May 2011 (Case R 1590/2010-1) concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between the European Commission and Welte-Wenu GmbH, in so far as it states that Welte-Wenu shall pay the costs of the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and includes them in the global sum of EUR 2 500 which Welte-Wenu must reimburse to the European Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Welte-Wenu to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM. The Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona Tingsrätt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzén (Case C-189/95)

text:
No C 208/ 14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
      as such formed part of the decision to impose a fine, that         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona
      cartel played a role in many places in the Commission's            Tingsratt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the
      decision and also had a decisive influence on the                               Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzen
      judgment of the Court of First Instance .                                                 ( Case C-l 89/95 )
— Infringements of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                                          ( 95/C 208/27 )
      Court of First Instance committed serious errors in its
      treatment of the established facts . In particular it several      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      times took no account of relevant considerations . That is
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Landskrona
      true of market delimitation, the alleged arrangements              Tingsratt ( Landskrona District Court) of 14 June 1995 ,
      between the applicant and Trefilunion, the alleged quota           which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1995 ,
      and price agreements with the Benelux producers                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public Prosecutor v.
      concerning the German market and the alleged quota                 Harry Franzen on the following questions :
      and price agreements concerning the Benelux market.
      The judgment completely ignores the applicant's
      submissions at the hearing as well as the applicant's              1 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      replies to the written questions asked by the Court of                  compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome ?
      First Instance . Likewise the Court of First Instance failed
      to observe the preconditions of Regulation No 67/67                2 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      ( group exemptions ).                                                   contrary to Article 37 of the Treaty of Rome and, if so,
                                                                              must the monopoly be abolished or is an adjustment
— Infringements of Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 : the                    possible ?
      Court of First Instance is wrong at law to assume that
      there is no need in an individual case to weigh up                 3 . If a monopoly such as the Systembolaget is to be
      mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the                         regarded as being contrary to Article 37, is any period of
      determination of the fine . Similarly wrong at law is the               adjustment available or should it have been abolished or
      Court 's assessment of the existence of the lawful                      an adjustment made by 1 January 1995 ?
      structural crisis cartel . The Court further fails to
       recognize that the applicant was in any event entitled to
      plead an inevitable mistake concerning the prohibition .
       Finally the Court misdirected itself in law in applying the
       principle of proportionality.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
( 2 ) O ) No L 260 , 6 . 9 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                         Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in the
                                                                         case of ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst
                                                                                Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam
                                                                                ( Case C-l 90/95 )
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                                ( 95/C 208/28 )
Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo
di Porto e di Tivoli by orders of that court of 1 8 February
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-187/95 ) in                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against                   European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
Luciano Iommi and Others , Angelo Deodati and Luchini                     ( Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 7 June 1995
                                   Aldo                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June 1995 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of ARO Lease BV v.
                 ( Cases C-l 86/95 and C-l 87/95 )                       Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( Head
                              ( 95/C 208/26 )                            of the Large Undertakings Unit of the Revenue Office ),
                                                                          Amsterdam, on the following question :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by orders of the Pretura                            Must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive
 Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo                77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
 di Porto e di Tivoli ( District Magistrate 's Court, Rome —              laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
 Castelnuovo di Porto and Tivoli Sections ), of 18 February               common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 , which were                     assessment, be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person
 received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 for a                     established in the Netherlands who, as such, makes
 preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                   available to third parties approximately 6 800 passenger
 before that court against Iommi Luciano and Others,                      cars under operational-lease agreements , of which
 Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini on questions identical to                approximately 800 were purchased and made available in
 those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 (')•                    Belgium, where ARO does not have an office, supplies those
                                                                          services from a fixed establishment in Belgium ?
 (') See Of No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 12 July 1996 in Case C-180/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Council of the European Union (Application for interim relief - Agriculture - Animal health - Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy)

text:
No C 336 / 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                 di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District Magistrates '
                          of 12 July 1996                             Court, Rome, Tivoli Division ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
in Case C-l 80/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Mario Modesti — on the compatibility of national
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European                        legislation relating to the management of copyright with
Communities, supported by Council of the European                     Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court composed of: G. C.
                              Union ( l )                             Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
(Application for interim relief — Agriculture — Animal                Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
health — Emergency measures against bovine spongiform                 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.
                          encephalopathy)                             G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P.
                           ( 96/C 336/29 )                            Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                      Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                (Language of the case: English)                       19 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
In Case C-l 80/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di
Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey Nicoll and Sir Nicholas
Lyell, assisted by K. P. E. Lasok and David Anderson )                Tivoli, by order of 21 February 1996 is inadmissible.
against the Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : Dierk Booss and James Macdonald Flett ),                   (>) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
supported by the Council of the European Union ( Agents :
Arthur Brautigam and Moyra Sims ) — application for
suspension of the operation of Commission Decision
96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to
protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( 2 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
and/or for interim measures — the Court, composed of
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                                of 19 July 1996
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of               in Case C-l 96/96: criminal proceedings against Hassan
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.                                      Lahlou ( 1 )
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
Ragnemalm and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ), Judges;                        (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro; Registrar: R. Grass, made              movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
an order on 12 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          with regard to national legislation on the management of
follows :                                                                  copyright by a company governed by public law)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/31 )
1 . The United Kingdom 's application is dismissed.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1996 , p. 47.
                                                                      In Case C-l 96/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                      di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District Magistrates'
                                                                      Court, Rome , Tivoli Division ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Hassan Lahlou — on the compatibility of national
                          of 19 July 1996                             legislation relating to the management of copyright with
in Case C-l 91/96: criminal proceedings against Mario                 Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court composed of: G. C.
                              Modesti 0 )                             Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
                                                                      Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
(Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free           Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.
movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
                                                                      G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P.
 with regard to national legislation on the management of             Jann , H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
       copyright by a company governed by public law)                 Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                           ( 96/C 336/30 )                            19 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Tivoli, by order of 15 May 1996 is inadmissible.
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
In Case C-191 /96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale


title: Case T-285/04: Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Michel Andrieu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/35

         Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Michel Andrieu against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-285/04)
   (2004/C 262/67)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 2004 by Michel Andrieu, residing in Saint-Mande (France), represented by S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 30 March 2004 replying to the applicant's complaint and also annul the career development report drawn up in respect of the applicant for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               find that the European Community bears extra-contractual liability on account of the contested decision and the belated establishment of the applicant's career development report;

               —

               award the applicant damages and interest for professional harm, material harm and non-material harm sustained in a total amount of EUR 64,468, including nominal damages of EUR 1 for mental harassment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The present action is brought against the decision adopted on 31 March 2004 by the Director of Personnel and Administration of the Commission, rejecting the applicant's complaint submitted in the context of the establishment of his career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 September 2002 (REC 2001-2002).
   The applicant disputes the legality of that decision and also the legality of REC 2001-2002 on which the decision is based.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               Breach of the rights of the defence, having regard in particular to the non-classification of certain elements of assessment in the applicant's staff file, their partial transcription on the computerised system ‘SYSPER2’ and the fact that it was impossible to identify the reference REC to be taken into account;

               —

               Breach of procedural guarantees, owing in particular to the conflict of interests on the part of the assessor and validator, and also breach of certain procedures for the implementation of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Manifest error of assessment;

               —

               Failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-615/15: Action brought on 2 November 2015 — LL v Parliament

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/66

         Action brought on 2 November 2015 — LL v Parliament
   (Case T-615/15)
   (2016/C 027/84)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: LL (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: J. Petrulionis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Decision D(2014) 15503 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 April 2014 and Debit Note No 2014-575 adopted on the basis of that decision on 5 May 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the legal costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      The correctness of the payment and the validity and lawfulness of its recovery

   The applicant submits that, in Decision D(2014) 15503, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament decided in an entirely unfounded and unlawful manner that the amount of EUR 37 728 had been unduly paid to the applicant and, in a manner which was unfounded and unlawful under Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Article 80 of the Rules of Application for the Financial Regulation, instructed the Accounting Officer of the European Parliament to recover from the applicant the payment of EUR 37 728 and, in accordance with the procedure laid down, to notify the applicant of that matter by Debit Note No 2014-575.
   According to the applicant, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, when adopting the decision, took into account only two elements: the OLAF report and the fact that the applicant had not adduced evidence that the payment was used for its intended purpose. However, the applicant claims, no information was collected which confirms that he used the payment received for purposes other than that for which it was intended, in breach of Article 14 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament.

      The limitation period and the application of the principles of a reasonable period, legal security and the protection of legitimate expectations

   The applicant claims that, in Decision D(2014) 15503 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and in Debit Note No 2014-575, the limitation period provided for in Article 81 of the Financial Regulation and in Article 93 of the Rules of Application for the Financial Regulation was not respected, and that the requirements of the principles of a reasonable period, legal security and the protection of legitimate expectations were not complied with.
   According to the applicant, the relevant EU institutions delayed, in an unfounded and unfair manner and for an unreasonably long time, in exercising their powers and taking the relevant decisions. In this way, the applicant’s rights were infringed, including the right of defence and the proper implementation of that right, since, owing to the long period between the events under investigation and the taking of the relevant decisions, the applicant was objectively deprived of the opportunity effectively to defend himself against the accusations made, to present evidence and to take all other necessary steps to ensure that the matter under examination would be resolved equitably.


title: Case T-91/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Lucchini v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Legal basis — Rights of the defence — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Extenuating circumstances — Taking account of an annulment judgment in a related case)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Lucchini v Commission
   (Case T-91/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Legal basis - Rights of the defence - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Taking account of an annulment judgment in a related case))
   (2015/C 034/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Lucchini SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by M. Delfino, J.-P. Gunther, E. Bigi, C. Breuvart and L. De Sanctis, and subsequently by J.-P Gunther, E. Bigi, C. Breuvart and D. Galli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer, and subsequently by M. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration of the non-existence or for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in the alternative application for annulment of Article 2 of that decision, and in the further alternative application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lucchini SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-414/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon (Common commercial policy — Article 207 TFEU — Commercial aspects of intellectual property — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) — Article 27 — Patentable subject-matter — Article 70 — Protection of existing subject-matter)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon
   (Case C-414/11) (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Article 207 TFEU - Commercial aspects of intellectual property - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) - Article 27 - Patentable subject-matter - Article 70 - Protection of existing subject-matter)
   2013/C 260/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

      Defendants: DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Polimeles Protodikio Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) annexed to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 214) — Distinction between fields covered by Community law and those within the competence of the Member States — Patents — Chemical and pharmaceutical products

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), falls within the field of the common commercial policy.

               2.

               Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the invention of a pharmaceutical product such as the active chemical compound of a medicinal product is, in the absence of a derogation in accordance with Article 27(2) or (3), capable of being the subject-matter of a patent, under the conditions set out in Article 27(1).

               3.

               A patent obtained following an application claiming the invention both of the process of manufacture of a pharmaceutical product and of the pharmaceutical product as such, but granted solely in relation to the process of manufacture, does not, by reason of the rules set out in Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, have to be regarded from the entry into force of that agreement as covering the invention of that pharmaceutical product.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-391/12: Action brought on 5 September 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Unipapel Industria Comercio y Servicios (UNITED OFFICE)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/31

         Action brought on 5 September 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Unipapel Industria Comercio y Servicios (UNITED OFFICE)
   (Case T-391/12)
   2012/C 355/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and S. Paul, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unipapel Industria Comercio y Servicios, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 June 2012 in case R 745/2011-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘UNITED OFFICE’, for goods in classes 9, 16 and 20 — Community trade mark application No 7454606

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on Community trade mark registration No 1445832 of the word mark ‘UNIOFFICE’, for goods in class 16

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the challenged Community trade mark in respect of part of the goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95

               —

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


title: Case C-404/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-404/17)
   (2017/C 293/26)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: Migrationsverket

      Question referred

   Is an application in which the applicant’s information is deemed to be reliable and so is taken as the basis for the assessment, but insufficient to form the basis of a need for international protection on the ground that the country-of-origin information suggests that there is acceptable protection, to be regarded as clearly unfounded under Article 31(8) of the recast Asylum Procedure Directive? (1)

      (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).


title: Case C-159/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bourges — France) — Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Conditions under which a comparative advertising is permitted — Price comparison based on selection of food products marketed by two competing retail store chains — Goods meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose — Misleading advertising — Comparison based on a verifiable feature)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bourges — France) — Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA
   (Case C-159/09) (1)

   (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Conditions under which a comparative advertising is permitted - Price comparison based on selection of food products marketed by two competing retail store chains - Goods meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose - Misleading advertising - Comparison based on a verifiable feature)
   2011/C 13/13
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Bourges

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl SNC

      Defendant: Vierzon Distribution SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Bourges — Interpretation of Article 3a of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted — Comparison of prices charged by a competing chain of stores — Goods meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3a(1)(b) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact alone that food products differ in terms of the extent to which consumers would like to eat them and the pleasure to be derived from consuming them, according to the conditions and place of production, their ingredients and who produced them, cannot preclude the possibility that the comparison of such products may meet the requirement laid down in that provision that the products compared meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose, that is to say, that they display a sufficient degree of interchangeability.
   Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, is to be interpreted as meaning that an advertisement such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be misleading, in particular if:

               —

               it is found, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the particular case, in particular the information contained in or omitted from the advertisement, that the decision to buy on the part of a significant number of consumers to whom the advertisement is addressed may be made in the mistaken belief that the selection of goods made by the advertiser is representative of the general level of his prices as compared with those charged by his competitor and that such consumers will therefore make savings of the kind claimed by the advertisement by regularly buying their everyday consumer goods from the advertiser rather than the competitor, or in the mistaken belief that all of the advertiser’s products are cheaper than those of his competitor, or

               —

               it is found that, for the purposes of a comparison based solely on price, food products were selected which, nevertheless, have different features capable of significantly affecting the average consumer’s choice, without such differences being apparent from the advertising concerned.

         Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, is to be interpreted as meaning that the condition of verifiability set out in that provision requires, in the case of an advertisement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which compares the prices of two selections of goods, that it must be possible to identify the goods in question on the basis of information contained in the advertisement.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 January 2015 in Case E-11/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payments in commercial transactions)

text:
               18.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 January 2015
   in Case E-11/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payments in commercial transactions)
   (2015/C 201/05)
   In Case E-11/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-335/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail, Liège): Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) v. Michel Picard (Social security for migrant workers - Old-age and death insurance - Benefits - Concurrent award of pensions under the legislation of two Member States - Automatic award on submission of a claim to the competent institution of one of the Member States - Claim to be made to the institution of the Member State of residence in order to obtain award of both pensions concurrently)

text:
No c 26 /2            IEN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25 . 1 . 97
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
that court between Societe sucriere agricole de Maizy,                                           (Third Chamber)
Societe     sucriere   de Berneuil-sur-Aisne   and   Directeur
regional des impôts — on the interpretation of the                                            of 24 October 1996
Community rules relating to various levies in the sugar
sector — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C. N.              in Case C-335/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Kakouris, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber             the Cour du travail, Liège ): Institut national d'assurances
                                                                     sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti ) v. Michel
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,                                                      Picard i 1 )
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl ,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              (Social security for migrant workers — Old-age and death
judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has ruled:                 insurance — Benefits — Concurrent award of pensions
                                                                     under the legislation of two Member States — Automatic
                                                                     award on submission of a claim to the competent
                                                                     institution of one of the Member States — Claim to be
 1 . Article 8 (2), third subparagraph (a), of Council
                                                                     made to the institution of the Member State of residence
      Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
      common organization of the markets in the sugar                    in order to obtain award of both pensions concurrently)
      sector and Article 6 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)                                           ( 97/C 26/03 )
      No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 laying down general
      rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar and
      repealing Regulation (EEC) No 750/68 must be                                       (Language of the case: French)
      interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions
      for materialization of the obligation to pay the storage
      levy are satisfied when the sugar is disposed of.                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 2 . Article 28 (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/              In Case C-335/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
      81 must be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed           Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour du travail
      conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay         ( Labour Court), Liege ( Belgium ), for a preliminary ruling
      the production levies thereby imposed are satisfied             in the proceedings pending before that court between
      when sugar production is calculated at the end of each          Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs
      marketing year.                                                 independants (Inasti ) and Michel Picard — on the
                                                                      interpretation of Article 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/
                                                                      72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the
  3 . Article 32a (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 , as            procedure for implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/
      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 934/86 of                71 on the application of social security schemes to
       24 March 1986, and Article 1 (I ) of Commission                employed persons, self-employed persons and members of
       Regulation (EEC) No 3046/86 of 3 October 1986                  their families moving within the Community, as amended
       laying down detailed rules concerning the collection of         and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
       the elimination levy in the sugar sector must be                2 June 1983 ( 2) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
       interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions           of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), President of
       for materialization of the obligation to pay the                the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; A.
       elimination levy are satisfied when sugar production is         La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
       calculated at the end of each of the marketing years            given a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has
       from 1986/87 to 1990/91 .                                       ruled :
                                                                       Article 36 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the
  4 . Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1914/87 of               Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for
       2 July 1987 introducing a special elimination levy in            implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the
        the sugar sector for the 1986/87 marketing year and            application of social security schemes to employed
       Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                  persons, self-employed persons and members of their
        No 3061 /87 of 13 October 1987 fixing the coefficient           families moving within the Community, as amended and
        for the calculation of the special elimination levy in          updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of
        the sugar sector for the 1986/87 marketing year must            2 June 1983, which provides for the concurrent award of
        be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed                   benefits when a claim for benefits is submitted to an
        conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay         institution of a Member State, lays down an independent
        the special elimination levy are satisfied when sugar           procedural rule which applies regardless of whether the
        production is calculated at the end of the 1986/87              provisions of Article 36 (1 ) to (3) have been complied
        marketing year.                                                 with .
   (M OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                        ( 1 ) OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 86 .


title: Joined Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 February 2006  — Standertskjöld-Nordenstam and Heyraud v Commission (Officials —  Second round  promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Failure to include on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 — Breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2006 — Standertskjöld-Nordenstam and Heyraud v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04) (1)

   (Officials - ‘Second round’ promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Failure to include on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 - Breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment)
   (2006/C 96/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: T. Demaseure, lawyer) and Jean-Claude Heyraud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Berscheid, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's decision not to include the applicants' names on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 in the 'second round' of the 2003 promotion procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               joins Cases T-437/04 and T-441/04 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               annuls the decisions of the Commission not to include the applicants' names on the list of the officials selected for promotion to Grade A3 in the 'second round' of the 2003 promotion procedure;

               3.

               orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case C-169/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  4 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Abbey National plc (with the Inscape Investment Fund as joined party) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(6) — Management of special investment funds — Exemption — Meaning of  management  — Functions of a depositary — Delegation of administrative management function)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Abbey National plc (with the Inscape Investment Fund as joined party) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-169/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(d)(6) - Management of special investment funds - Exemption - Meaning of ‘management’ - Functions of a depositary - Delegation of administrative management function)
   (2006/C 165/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Abbey National plc (with the Inscape Investment Fund as joined party)

      Defendants: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for management of special investment funds — Scope
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘management’ of special investment funds in Article 13B(d)(6) 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 has its own independent meaning in Community law whose content the Member States may not alter.

               2.

               Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘management of special investment funds’ referred to in that provision covers the services performed by a third-party manager in respect of the administrative management of the funds, if, viewed broadly, they form a distinct whole, and are specific to, and essential for, the management of those funds.
               On the other hand, services corresponding to the functions of a depositary, such as those set out in Articles 7(1) and (3) and 14(1) and (3) of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), are not covered by that concept.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 29.05.2004.


title: Case C-457/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2009 — Claude Chartry v État belge

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2009 — Claude Chartry v État belge
   (Case C-457/09)
   2010/C 37/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Claude Chartry

      Defendant: État belge

      Question referred

   ‘Do Article 6 [EU] and Article 234 [EC] preclude national legislation, such as the Law of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Law [on the Constitutional Court], from requiring the national court to make a reference to the Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling, if it finds that a citizen taxpayer has been deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into Community law, by another national law, [namely] Article 49 of the Law … of 9 July 2004, without that national court being able to ensure immediately the direct [effect] of Community law [in the] proceedings before it and without being able also to carry out a review of its compliance with the Convention where the Constitutional Court has recognised the compatibility of the national legislation with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the [Belgian] Constitution?’


title: Case C-221/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 11 May 2012 — Belgacom NV v Interkommunale voor Teledistributie van het Gewest Antwerpen (INTEGAN) and Others

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 11 May 2012 — Belgacom NV v Interkommunale voor Teledistributie van het Gewest Antwerpen (INTEGAN) and Others
   (Case C-221/12)
   2012/C 243/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgacom NV

      Defendants: Interkommunale voor Teledistributie van het Gewest Antwerpen (INTEGAN), Inter-Media, West-Vlaamse Energie- en Teledistributiemaatschappij (WVEM), Provinicale Brabantse Energiemaatschappij CVBA (PBE)

      Interveners: Telenet NV, Telenet Vlaanderen NV, Telenet Group Holding NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Articles 49 or 56 TFEU be interpreted in such a way that an undertaking established in Belgium may rely on the fundamental rules of European Union law before the Belgian courts, in particular, on the obligation of transparency which is derived from the aforementioned Articles, in respect of an agreement which does not fall within the scope of any of the directives concerning public tenders, under which a Belgian authority transfers rights to another Belgian undertaking without having organised an invitation to tender?

               2.

               Can the efforts to prevent the infringement of an existing, in itself undisputed and very specific contractual framework between a legal person governed by public law and a private law undertaking, not controlled by itself, or the conclusion of a transaction or a settlement aimed at the resolution of an existing interpretation dispute regarding the aforementioned contractual framework, where that settlement is based on the rights of the parties in accordance with a provisional decision of a judge hearing an application for interim relief and where, without such a settlement, the relevant activity of the authority can incur serious damage and depreciation, with the consumers, in the meanwhile, remaining deprived of services, be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest, or at least an objective ground of justification, justifying the fact that legal persons governed by public law, by way of exception and contrary to the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality, which are laid down in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the obligation of transparency to which it gives rise, do not organise an invitation to bid and award the tender directly?

               3.

               If the second question can be answered in the affirmative, should the aforementioned transaction or settlement, so as not to limit the aforementioned fundamental freedoms guaranteed by European Union law more than is necessary in order to achieve the aim pursued, then be limited to what is strictly required to put an end to the dispute which has arisen, or may the parties devise a more far-reaching settlement with a view to future challenges which have a reasonable and logical connection with the dispute and which at the same time safeguards the interests of the consumers and also entails maximising the value of the transferred activity concerned?


title: Case T-25/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/23

         Action brought on 17 January 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)
   (Case T-25/12)
   2012/C 98/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: 3M Pumps Srl (Taglio di Po, Italy) (represented by: F. Misuraca, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 3M Company (St. Paul, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in Case R 2406/2010-1.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: 3M Pumps Srl

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘3M Pumps’, for goods and services in Classes 7, 16 and 38

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: 3M Company

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘3M’, for goods and services in Classes 7, 16 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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


title: Case C-367/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Notion of same acts — Different acts — Prosecution in two Contracting States — Acts linked together by the same criminal intention)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink
   (Case C-367/05) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Ne bis in idem principle - Notion of ‘same acts’ - Different acts - Prosecution in two Contracting States - Acts linked together by the same criminal intention)
   (2007/C 235/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Party in the main proceedings
   Norma Kraaijenbrink
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem principle — Acts different but sharing a common intention and thus legally constituting a single act — Whether or not these are ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54 — Discovery, subsequent to conviction in one State, of other acts committed during the same period as the acts sanctioned and committed with the same criminal intention — Right to prosecute these additional acts in another State — Account to be taken of sentences already imposed in the first State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen (Luxembourg), must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected;

               —

               different acts consisting, in particular, first, in holding in one Contracting State the proceeds of drug trafficking and, second, in the exchanging at exchange bureaux in another Contracting State of sums of money also originating from such trafficking should not be regarded as ‘the same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement merely because the competent national court finds that those acts are linked together by the same criminal intention;

               —

               it is for that national court to assess whether the degree of identity and connection between all the facts to be compared is such that it is possible, in the light of the said relevant abovementioned criterion, to find that they are ‘the same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.02.2007.