title: Case T-18/05: Action brought on 19 January 2005 by IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd. and Yorkshire Copper Tube against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/25

         Action brought on 19 January 2005 by IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd. and Yorkshire Copper Tube against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-18/05)
   (2005/C 69/45)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 2005 by IMI plc, established in Birmingham (United Kingdom), IMI Kynoch Ltd., established in Birmingham (United Kingdom) and Yorkshire Copper Tube, established in Liverpool (United Kingdom), represented by M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 insofar as it relates to the companies listed in Article 1 (h), (i) and (j) and annul Article 2 (f) of the Commission Decision dated 3 September 2004 and amended by written procedure on 20 October 2004 in case COMP/E-1/38.069-copper plumbing tubes;

               —

               alternatively, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision, the Commission found an infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA by several undertakings in the copper plumbing sector. The infringement comprised three separate manifestations: arrangements among the so-called SANCO producers, arrangements among the so called WICU and Cuprotherm producers and arrangements among the broader group of copper plumbing tube producers. According to the decision, the applicants were not aware or could not have reasonably foreseen the SANCO arrangements and the WICU and Cuprotherm arrangements.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit a violation of the principle of non-discrimination. According to the applicants, the Commission favoured, because of the way it conducted its investigation, some of the undertakings. The applicants state that they were the last companies to receive a request for information and therefore were also the last to apply for leniency, resulting in only a 10 % reduction of the fine on that ground.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the Commission erred in finding that the SANCO arrangements were not significantly tighter than the arrangements in the broader group. They also submit that the absence of differentiation at the level of the fines between the participants in the SANCO arrangements and participants in the broader group of producers, violates the principle of non-discrimination and the principle according to which responsibility for violating competition law is personal in nature.
   The applicants also contest the conclusion to impose the same fine on the applicants and the producers that participated in the broader arrangement and the WICU and Cuprotherm arrangements. The applicants submit that this conclusion violates the principle of non-discrimination, the principle according to which responsibility for violating competition law is personal in nature and that the decision is not sufficiently reasoned on this point.
   The applicants furthermore claim that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination and made a manifest error in finding that the applicants participated without interruption in the arrangements while no continuity could be established in respect of certain other undertakings. According to the applicants, their situation is identical to that of those other undertakings. The applicants also invoke in this respect a violation of their rights of defence in that the Commission relied in the decision on elements that had not been taken into consideration in the statement of objections.
   Finally, the applicants submit a violation of the principle of proportionality in the determination of the fines.


title: Case C-297/08: Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/35

         Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-297/08)
   (2008/C 223/55)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra, D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, in respect of the Region of Campania, all the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (1);

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the Commission seeks to obtain a declaration that the Italian Republic has failed to create, in the Region of Campania, an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations suitable to enable self-sufficiency in waste disposal characterised by the criterion of proximity. As recognised by the Italian authorities themselves in official communications, the failure to fulfil obligations complained of is a source of danger to human health and the environment and therefore constitutes infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 114 of 27.4.2006, p. 9.


title: Case C-586/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti központi kerületi bírόság (Hungary)) — Martin Meat kft v Géza Simonfay, Ulrich Salburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 1(3)(a) and (c) — Posting of workers — Hiring out of workers — Act of Accession of 2003 — Chapter 1, paragraphs 2 and 13 of Annexe X — Transitional measures — Access of Hungarian nationals to the labour market of States already members of the European Union at the date of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Hungary — Requirement of a work permit for the hiring out of workers — Non-sensitive sectors)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti központi kerületi bírόság (Hungary)) — Martin Meat kft v Géza Simonfay, Ulrich Salburg
   (Case C-586/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 1(3)(a) and (c) - Posting of workers - Hiring out of workers - Act of Accession of 2003 - Chapter 1, paragraphs 2 and 13 of Annexe X - Transitional measures - Access of Hungarian nationals to the labour market of States already members of the European Union at the date of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Hungary - Requirement of a work permit for the hiring out of workers - Non-sensitive sectors))
   (2015/C 279/08)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Pesti központi kerületi bírόság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin Meat kft

      Defendants: Géza Simonfay, Ulrich Salburg

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Chapter 1, paragraph 2, and paragraph 13, of Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as meaning that the Republic of Austria is entitled to restrict the hiring-out of workers on its territory, in accordance with Chapter 1, paragraph 2 of that annex, even though that provision does not concern a sensitive sector, within the meaning of Chapter 1, paragraph 13, thereof.

               2.

               In order to determine whether a contractual relationship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as a hiring-out of workers, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, it is necessary to take into consideration each element indicating whether the movement of workers in the host Member State is the very purpose of the supply of services on which the contractual relationship is based. In principle, evidence that such a movement is not the very purpose of the supply of services at issue are, inter alia, the fact that the service provider is liable for the failure to perform the service in accordance with the contract and the fact that that service provider is free to determine the number of workers he deems necessary to send to the host Member State. By contrast, the fact that the undertaking which receives those services checks the performance of the service for compliance with the contract or that it may give general instructions to the workers employed by the service provider does not, as such, lead to the finding that there is a hiring-out of workers.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1997 in Case T-220/95: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials - Economic and Social Committee - Committee of the Regions - Common organizational structure - Internal competition - Decision by the selection board not to admit a candidate to an internal competition - Action for annulment)

text:
C 331 / 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 11 . 97
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                     of 16 September 1997                              Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Case T-220/95 : Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of                  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
            the Regions of the European Union (')                      Cessange, v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Officials — Economic and Social Committee —                           Diego Canga Fano and Aidan Patrick Feeney) —
Committee of the Regions — Common organizational                       application for annulment of the Council's decision of
structure — Internal competition — Decision by the                     29 January 1996 refusing to increase the applicant's
selection board not to admit a candidate to an internal                annual leave by the addition of extra travelling time —
             competition — Action for annulment)                       the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                       A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
                           ( 97/C 331 /37                              Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                       has given a judgment on 23 September 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-220/95 : Christophe Gimenez, a member of the
temporary staff of the Economic and Social Committee,                  2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             (') OJ C 9, 11 . 1 . 1997.
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
v. Committee of the Regions of the European Union
(Agent: Dominique Lagasse ) — application for annulment
of the decision adopted on 27 November 1995 by the
selection board in internal competition CdR-A/03/95 not
to admit the applicant to that competition — the Court of
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W.                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bellamy, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.                                    of 25 September 1997
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
1997, in which it:                                                     in Case T- 150/95 : UK Steel Association v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( ! )
1 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal             (Action for annulment — State aid — ECSC Treaty —
    competition CdR-A/03/95 refusing to admit the                      Fifth Steel Aid Code — New plant — Community
    applicant to that competition;                                           guidelines on aid for environmental protection)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /39 )
2 . orders the Committee of the Regions to bear its own
    costs and to pay the costs of the applicant, including                              (Language of the case: English)
    those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.
                                                                       In Case T-150/95 : UK Steel Association, formerly British
H OJ C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 .
                                                                       Iron and Steel Producers Association (BISPA), whose head
                                                                       office is in London, represented by John Boyce and Philip
                                                                       Raven,     Solicitors,     with   an    address for service    in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wagener & Rukavina,
                                                                       10a Boulevard de la Foire, v. Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz ),
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              supported by Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
                     of 23 September 1997                              Georges Schmit, Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke and
                                                                       Koen Platteau, and Arbed SA, established in Luxembourg,
in Case T-l 72/96: Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue v. Council               represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels
                  of the European Union (')                            Bar, with an address for service at the office of Paul
                                                                       Ehmann, Legal Department, Arbed, 19 Avenue de la
(Officials — Annual leave — Travelling time — Place of
                                                                       Liberté — application for annulment of the decision
       origin outside Europe — Equality of treatment)                  reproduced in Commission notice 94/C 400/02 pursuant
                           ( 97/C 331 /38 )                            to Article 6 (4 ) of Decision No 3855/91/ECSC to other
                                                                       Member States and interested parties concerning aid
                                                                       which Luxembourg plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Arbed) ( State Aid C 25/94 ( ex N 11/94 ) (2 ), finding that
                                                                       the aid which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg planned
In Case T-172/96 : Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue, . an official           to grant to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
of the Council of the European Union, residing in                      Decision No 3855/91 and was thus compatible with the


title: Case T-697/15: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/41

         Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)
   (Case T-697/15) (1)

   (2016/C 279/57)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case C-44/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg — Germany) — Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) (Customs union — Community transit — Proof of the regularity of a transit operation or of the place of the offence — Three-month period — Period granted subsequent to the decision to recover the import duties)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg — Germany) — Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   (Case C-44/06) (1)

   (Customs union - Community transit - Proof of the regularity of a transit operation or of the place of the offence - Three-month period - Period granted subsequent to the decision to recover the import duties)
   (2007/C 95/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gerlach & Co. mbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling –Interpretation of Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) — Offence or irregularity committed in the course of an external Community transit operation (T1) — Period for provision of proof as to the place in which the offence or irregularity was committed indicated only after the decision to recover duty had been taken and in the course of complaint proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs cannot grant to the principal the three-month period to enable it to provide proof of the regularity of the transit operation or proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed after the decision has been taken to proceed to recovery of the import duties, during the proceedings relating to a complaint lodged against that decision.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-154/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste electrical and electronic equipment — Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-154/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Waste electrical and electronic equipment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)
   (2006/C 326/41)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 106)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, in respect of the Åland Islands, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 03.06.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998 in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG (Case C-217/98)

text:
C 258/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
least equal to the prices on 1 December 1993 increased by            27 November 1987 in conjunction with Article 29(1) of
20 %.                                                                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (2) of 22 July
                                                                     1985 to be interpreted as meaning that the additional
                                                                     amount of 20 % of the export refund concerned is to be
                                                                     levied even where the goods put into storage pending
According to the Commission, the conflicting nature of
                                                                     export with a view to advance payment of the refund
the provisions of Article 45 of Law No 2127/1993 gives
                                                                     pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/
rise to doubt as regards the rights and duties of those
                                                                     80 (3) of 4 March 1980 in conjunction with Articles 25
concerned.
                                                                     and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 are not exported
                                                                     Ð as originally planned Ð but are put back into free
                                                                     circulation in the Community following storage and the
In fact producers and importers are not free to determine            application for payment (Article 29(2) of Regulation
the selling price of their products, since there is a limit,         (EEC) No 3665/87) is withdrawn?
that is to say a minimum price which must be complied
with. That limit is fixed by the Minister for Finance and
corresponds to the selling price of those products as                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
determined for the previous year, increased by 20 %. The             (2) OJ L 205 of 3.8.1985, p. 5.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 62 of 7.3.1980, p. 5.
fact that the fixing of that limit takes place on the basis of
the selling prices which the producers or importers have
determined for previous years is not sufficient to show
that there is no restriction on freedom to determine prices.
Producers or importers do not have freedom to form their
prices but are bound to align them with the prices which
were decided upon in a given year. They cannot,
consequently, sell their products at a price lower than the
minimum price, as fixed by the Minister for Finance.                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre by judgment of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1998 in the case of Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and
                                                                                243 others v SA Renault
Consequently, in so far as the Hellenic Republic prescribes
by ministerial decision a minimum retail selling price for                                  (Case C-218/98)
manufactured tobacco, it prevents manufacturers and
importers from determining that price freely, as they are                                     (98/C 258/42)
entitled to do under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/
EC, which replaced Article 5 of Directive 72/464/EEC.
(1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre (Industrial Tribunal, Le Havre) of
                                                                     24 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                     on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and 243 others v SA Renault on
                                                                     the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998
in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ                      Does the principle of equal pay for men and women laid
                        Nordfleisch AG                               down by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and
                                                                     subsequent legislation authorise payment to a pregnant
                       (Case C-217/98)                               woman only, and not to the father of the child, of the sum
                                                                     of FF 7 500 when she takes maternity leave, given that:
                        (98/C 258/41)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               such payment is provided for by the last part of Article 18
European      Communities        by   an    order     of   the       of the collective agreement of 5 July 1991 on social
Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Financial Court) of 7 April             benefits for Renault employees;
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the following
question:                                                            Article 19(2) of the agreement provides that employees'
                                                                     salaries continue to be paid during maternity leave?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 33(1)                 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1)                  of


title: Case F-36/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Armitage-Wilson v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/26

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Armitage-Wilson v Europol
   (Case F-36/09)
   2009/C 167/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kate Armitage-Wilson (the Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: W. J. Dammingh)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs


title: Case F-122/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2012 — Vacarescu v Commission (Civil service — Lateness — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2012 — Vacarescu v Commission
   (Case F-122/11)
   (Civil service - Lateness - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 46/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dragos-Lucian Vacarescu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R.-C. Radu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 18 April 2011 by which he was refused the payment of the daily allowance provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Vacarescu shall bear his own costs.


title: Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-392/95)

text:
No C 46/8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      17 . 2 . 96
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the European                    Geotronics SA, represented by Tommy Petterson, of the
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union               Swedish Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       ( Case C-392/95 )                              the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10, rue Mathias
                                                                      Hardt .
                          ( 96/C 46/12 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was               The Appellant claims that the Court should :
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 15 December 1995 by the European                       1 . set aside the abovementioned judgment of the Court of
Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Jose-Luis                       First Instance (the CFI );
Rufas Quintana , acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the               2. annul the decision addressed to Geotronics taken by the
European Parliament, Tower Building.                                        Commission rejecting Geotronics' tender as notified in a
                                                                            telefax received by Geotronics on 10 March 1994 ;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      3.    in the alternative declare that the Commission should
— annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Council                  compensate Geotronics for the damage Geotronics has
     Regulation No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995                             suffered as a result of the decision, at the amount of ECU
     determining the third countries whose nationals must be                500 400 plus interest for each calendar month
     in possession of visas when crossing the external borders              corresponding to Libor 30 days plus 1 % on that
     of the Member States ( M ,                                             amount as from the date on which Geotronics was
                                                                            notified of the Commission's decision until payment is
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                    made;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       4 . order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
                                                                            proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings
Infringement of essential procedural requirements : in                      before the CFI .
adopting the contested regulation, the Council substantially
amended the proposal of the Commission on which the
Parliament had delivered its opinion pursuant to                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 100c of the EC Treaty. The Parliament should have
been reconsulted on                                                   Admissibility
— the right reserved to the Member States in Article 2 ( 1 ) of       The Court of First Instance rejected Geotronics' claim for
     the regulation to require the possession of a visa by             annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 March 1994
     nationals of third countries not on the common list,              is inadmissible. The Court of First Instance thereby erred in
     which disregards the objective of the harmonization of            law by not regarding the Commission's decision as an act or
     visa policy,                                                      decision which may be the subject of an action under
                                                                       Article 173 of the EC Treaty. The Commission's decision
— the mutual non-recognition of visas issued by each                   produced binding legal effects on Geotronics that affected
      Member State ( resulting from the removal of Article 2 of        its interests by distinctly changing its legal position and,
      the Commission's proposal ).                                     therefore, constitutes a decision which may be the subject of
                                                                       an action under Article 173 .
 (>) OJ No L 234, 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                       Substance
                                                                       The Court of First Instance concluded that, in the absence of
                                                                       any unlawful conduct whatever on the part of the
                                                                        Commission, Geotronics' claim for compensation must be
 Appeal brought on 18 December 1995 by Geotronics SA                   rejected as unfounded. The Court of First Instance therefore
 against the judgment delivered on 26 October 1995 by the              erred in law by not upholding Geotronics' view that the
 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        Commission had infringed the EEA Agreement by
 European Communities in Case T-185/94 ( ] ) between                    discriminating against goods of EEA origin. The
 Geotronics SA and the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Commission is bound by the EEA Agreement in accordance
                                                                        with Article 228 ( 7 ) of the EC Treaty.
                       ( Case C-395 /95 P)
                            ( 96/C 46/13 )                              The issue of retroactivity
  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October                The Court of First Instance found that the Commission was
  1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance             right to rely on the general conditions laid down by it in the
  of the European Communities in Case T-185/94 between                  invitation to tender before the entry into force of the EEA
  Geotronics SA and the Commission of the European                      Agreement. As a result thereof the Commission was entitled
  Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of               to discriminate against Geotronics' products on grounds of
  the European Communities on 18 December 1995 by                       their provenance .


title: Case F-49/08: Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Giannini v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/33

         Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Giannini v Commission
   (Case F-49/08)
   (2008/C 183/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Massimo Giannini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for, first, annulment of the decision dismissing the applicant and an order that the defendant pay all the pecuniary rights linked to the continuance of the contract, as well as annulment of a number of decisions refusing the applicant entitlement to pecuniary rights. Secondly, an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision dismissing the applicant, communicated on 10 July 2007;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint, notified on 5 February 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the pecuniary rights linked to the continuance of the applicant's contract (inter alia, the basic salary, after deduction of the unemployment allowance paid, the allowances and reimbursements calculated over the duration of three years of the contract, and the travel expenses from the place of employment to the place of origin) plus default interest from the time when each of those rights became due until full payment, calculated at a rate three points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question;

               —

               In any event, annul the decisions of 27 July 2007 and of 20 September 2007 to withhold EUR 5 218,22 from the applicant's remuneration for August 2007, corresponding to part of the travel expenses from the applicant's place of employment to his place of origin and, consequently, the reimbursement of that sum of EUR 5 218,22 plus default interest from 15 August 2007 until full payment, calculated at a rate three points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question;

               —

               In any event, annul the decision of 28 August 2007 to limit the installation allowance to one third of the sum received in November 2006 and to recover the other two thirds, that is EUR 4 278,50, from the remuneration of February 2006 and, consequently, order the reimbursement of that sum of EUR 4 278,50 plus default interest from 15 February 2008, until full payment, calculated at a rate three points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question;

               —

               Allocate damages and interest to compensate for the material and non-material harm suffered, provisionally valued at EUR 200 000;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-337/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Bach Flower Remedies v EUIPO — Durapharma (RESCUE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark RESCUE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Bach Flower Remedies v EUIPO — Durapharma (RESCUE)
   (Case T-337/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark RESCUE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Simandlova and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2551/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Durapharma and Bach Flower Remedies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bach Flower Remedies Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-144/15: Action brought on 25 March 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Action brought on 25 March 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)
   (Case T-144/15)
   (2015/C 171/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos, Lda (Viseu, Portugal)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA’ — Application for registration No 11 074 391

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 1097/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 February 2014 in Opposition B 002139916;

               —

               reject the opposition B 002139916;

               —

               accept the community Trademark Application No 011074391 ‘VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA (+fig.)’ in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

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


title: Case C-499/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Marian Macikowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality — Taxation of a supply of immovable property in a procedure for compulsory sale by auction — National legislation requiring the court enforcement officer executing such a sale to calculate and pay VAT on the transaction — Payment of the purchase price to the competent court and need for the VAT to be paid to be transferred by that court to the court enforcement officer — Liability for damages and criminal liability of the court enforcement officer for non-payment of VAT — Difference between the general statutory time-limit for the payment of VAT by a taxable person and the time-limit imposed on the court enforcement officer — Impossibility of deducting the input VAT paid)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Marian Macikowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
   (Case C-499/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality - Taxation of a supply of immovable property in a procedure for compulsory sale by auction - National legislation requiring the court enforcement officer executing such a sale to calculate and pay VAT on the transaction - Payment of the purchase price to the competent court and need for the VAT to be paid to be transferred by that court to the court enforcement officer - Liability for damages and criminal liability of the court enforcement officer for non-payment of VAT - Difference between the general statutory time-limit for the payment of VAT by a taxable person and the time-limit imposed on the court enforcement officer - Impossibility of deducting the input VAT paid))
   (2015/C 171/04)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marian Macikowski

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 9, 193 and 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, within the context of a sale of immovable property effected through enforcement, imposes on a person — namely the court enforcement officer who made the sale — obligations to calculate, collect and pay the value added tax on the proceeds of that transaction within the prescribed time-limits.

               2)

               The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a court enforcement officer must be liable with his entire assets for the amount of value added tax due on the proceeds of the sale of immovable property effected through enforcement where he does not discharge his obligation to collect and pay that tax, provided that the court enforcement officer concerned actually has all legal means to discharge that obligation, which it is for the referring court to determine.

               3)

               Articles 206, 250 and 252 of Directive 2006/112 and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the paying agent as referred to in that provision is required to calculate, collect and pay an amount of value added tax on a sale of goods effected through enforcement without being able to deduct the amount of value added tax paid as input tax from the beginning of the tax period to the date of the collection of that tax from the taxable person.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-433/13: Action brought on 31 July 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/6

         Action brought on 31 July 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-433/13)
   2013/C 336/15
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and F. Schatz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by refusing to provide the cash benefit for care, cash benefit for assistance and cash benefit to compensate for increased costs under Law No 447/2008 to persons entitled who have their residence in a Member State other than the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 7 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems; (1)

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the cash benefit for care, cash benefit for assistance and cash benefit to compensate for increased costs under Law No 447/2008 are sickness benefits within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 which must also be paid to persons entitled who reside outside the Member State concerned (in the present case the Slovak Republic). National legislation thus may not restrict the right of persons entitled who have their residence outside the Slovak Republic to the receipt of those benefits. The national legislation of the Slovak Republic which lays down such a restriction is therefore contrary to Article 48 TFEU and Articles 7 and 21 of Regulation No 883/2004.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


title: Case C-476/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01 and T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/17

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01 and T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-476/09 P)
   2010/C 37/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámera Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa, Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance, that is the alternative claim to annul Article 3 of the contested decision;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal and the intervener, the Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law by holding, in this case, that there are no exceptional circumstances which give rise to a legitimate expectation that the tax measure at issue is lawful, so as to preclude an order to recover the aid in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) which relates to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The CFI distorted the issues in the case and infringed the rule that the parties should be heard. It also misinterpreted the case-law concerning the duty to give reasons for a decision.
               Neither the formal difference between the tax measure at issue and the measure which is the subject of Decision 93/337 (2), nor the fact that the Commission could have justified the selectivity criterion on information other than that which is explicitly mentioned in Decision 93/337, nor the finding of incompatibility in Decision 93/337, constitute sufficient reasons in law for the CFI not to determine whether there existed an exceptional circumstance that by itself or in combination with other circumstances in this case could preclude the Commission from ordering the recovery of the aid to which the contested decision relates.
               By holding that the measures at issue in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 are not analogous to the tax measure at issue for technical tax reasons and the because of amount of the subsidy, the CFI has distorted the issues between the parties, has disregarded the rule that the parties should be heard and has clearly misinterpreted the case-law specifically relating to the duty to state reasons.
               The CFI erred in law by holding that the Commission's attitude with respect to the tax exemption and/or the 1993 tax credit — which, as is clear from the from the case file, has not been assessed by the CFI, contrary to the Rules of Procedure — does not constitute an exceptional circumstance which could have justified some kind of legitimate expectation that the tax measure was lawful which would have precluded the recovery of the aid under Article 14(1) of Regulation on the ground that it would be contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               2.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.
               The CFI, by failing to order the disclosure of the evidence requested, has infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial to which the applicant is entitled, by refusing to assess evidence which is essential to the applicant's case thereby infringing its rights of defence, since its application was dismissed on the ground that it had not proved what it specifically sought to establish with the evidence which was not produced: if not the Commission's final position with respect to the complaint of 1994 against the tax rules of 1993 (including a tax credit), which are measures which are essentially the same as the contested measure, which rejected that complaint, then at least the attitude of the Commission which would constitute an exceptional circumstance in so far as its conduct gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the 1993 tax measures were lawful, which led to the adoption of the contested tax measure in 1996.

      (1)  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 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 10 May 1993 concerning a scheme of tax concessions for investment in the Basque country (OJ 1993 L 134, p. 25).


title: Case T-300/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — OASE/OHIM — COMPO France (AlGo)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/34

         Action brought on 5 June 2015 — OASE/OHIM — COMPO France (AlGo)
   (Case T-300/15)
   (2015/C 262/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: OASE GmbH (Hörstel, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: COMPO France SAS (Roche-Lez-Beaupré, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: OASE GmbH

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘AlGo’ — Registration No 10 096 337

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1409/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case C-13/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 7(f) — Personal data — Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data — Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ — Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim — Obligation on the controller to grant such a request — No such obligation)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’
   (Case C-13/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 7(f) - Personal data - Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data - Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ - Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim - Obligation on the controller to grant such a request - No such obligation))
   (2017/C 213/10)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde

      Defendant: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not imposing the obligation to disclose personal data to a third party in order to enable him to bring an action for damages before a civil court for harm caused by the person concerned by the protection of that data. However, Article 7(f) of that directive does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case C-397/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 18 July 2016 — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 18 July 2016 — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG
   (Case C-397/16)
   (2016/C 371/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Acacia Srl

      Respondents: Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do (a) the principles of the free movement of goods and of the freedom to provide services within the internal market, (b) the principle of the effectiveness of EU competition law and of the liberalisation of the internal market, (c) the principles of effet utile and of the uniform application within the European Union of EU law and (d) the provisions of secondary EU law, such as Directive 98/71, (1) and in particular Article 14 thereof, Article 1 of Regulation No 461/2010 (2) and UNECE Regulation No. 124, preclude an interpretation of Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002, (3) which contains the repair clause, that excludes replica wheels aesthetically identical to original equipment wheels and approved on the basis of UNECE Regulation No. 124 from the definition of a ‘component part of a complex product’ (that complex product being a motor vehicle) for the purposes of the repair of that complex product and the restoration of its original appearance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, do the rules on exclusive industrial rights in respect of registered designs, regard being had to the balancing of the interests referred to in the first question, preclude the application of the repair clause to replica complementary products that may be selected freely by the customer, on the basis that the repair clause is to be interpreted restrictively and may be relied upon only with respect to spare parts that come in one particular form only, that is to say, component parts the form of which has been determined in practically immutable fashion with respect to the external appearance of the complex product, to the exclusion of component parts that may be regarded as interchangeable and that may be applied freely, in accordance with the customer wishes?

               3.

               In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, what steps must a manufacturer of replica wheels take in order to ensure the free movement of products the intended use of which is the repair of a complex product and the restoration of its original appearance?

      (1)  Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 461/2010 of 27 May 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2010 L 129, p. 52).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Case T-293/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Syria International Islamic Bank v Council

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/26

         Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Syria International Islamic Bank v Council
   (Case T-293/12)
   2012/C 258/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syria International Islamic Bank Public Joint-Stock Company (Damas, Syria) (represented by: G. Laguesse and J.-P. Buyle, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Regulation 2012/544/CFSP implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as regards the applicant;

               —

               Annul Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as regards the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant the provisional amount of EUR 10 000 000 in compensation, without prejudice to any later increase or decrease in that amount;

               —

               Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since it was not possible for the applicant to be heard prior to the adoption of the sanctions and the Council refused to give the applicant the opportunity of submitting its arguments in the light of the specific evidence allegedly held by the Council, despite the applicant having asked to do so.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts, since the applicant has not, to its knowledge, following internals checks and inquiries, committed the infringements alleged in the contested measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the consequence of the measures adopted by the Council was the closure of the applicant’s financial system representing 90 % of its transactions in euros. That made a number of contracts ineffective, made the applicant liable and prevented thousands of Syrian citizens from carrying out different banking and financial transactions.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, since the requirements of Article 23 of Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1) and Articles 14 and 26 of Regulation No 36/2012 (2) were not met in that the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily participate in any attempts to evade the sanctions.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power, since the facts of the case lead the applicant to believe that the measures were adopted on grounds other than those stated in the contested measures.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, since the reasons given for the contested measures are elliptical and do not refer to specific evidence or to dates which would enable the applicant to identify the financial transactions which it is alleged to have carried out.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ L 319, p. 56).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ L 16, p. 1).


title: Case T-467/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/64

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission
   (Case T-467/14)
   2014/C 253/87
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fonditel Pensiones, Entidad Gestora de Fondos de Pensiones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-638/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca SARL v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of equal treatment — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca SARL v European Commission
   (Case C-638/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of equal treatment - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 104/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Roca SARL (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Roca SARL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case F-116/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Leon-Gonzalez v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Leon-Gonzalez v Commission
   (Case F-116/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/69)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15/2/214, p. 46.


title: Case T-177/02: Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/23
of the European Communities (Agents: N. Niejahr, K. Fitch                   Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet
and B. Wägenbaur) — application for partial annulment of                    SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new
additive preparations, the prolongation of provisional author-                                        (Case T-177/02)
isations and the ten year authorisation of an additive in
feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 25) — the Court of First
                                                                                (2002/C 233/44)
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 June 2002, the operative part of which                                            (Language of the case: French)
provides as follows:
1.    There is no need to rule in the present action.
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-
( 1) OJ 2001 C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                           Vezinhet SA, established in Cavaillon (France), represented by
                                                                            Béatrice Favarel-Veidig, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the following amounts to
                          of 19 June 2002                                         Malagutti-Vezinhet:
in Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits                                —     the sum of FRF 222 540,00 (EUR 33 926,00) as
agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the                                  compensation for loss incurred by that company;
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                —     the sum of FRF 1 943 413,56 (EUR 296 271,48) as
(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001                                    compensation for loss of profits in the British
— Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest                                      market; if the Court of First Instance considers the
                           inadmissibility)                                             claim for loss of profits to be insufficiently proven,
                                                                                it is requested to award the applicant the aforemen-
                          (2002/C 233/43)                                               tioned sum in respect of the loss of a chance to
                                                                                retain its previously established levels of business;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                —     the sum of FRF 2 013 455,16 (EUR 306 949,26) as
                                                                                compensation for harm caused to the company’s
In Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits agricoles                            reputation with European and, in particular, British
de la Martinique (GIPAM), whose registered office is at Ducos                           distributors.
(France), represented by A. Lorang, P. Leroyer Gravet and
H. Mazingue, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Bordes and L. Visaggio) — application for annul-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation
(EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing                   The applicant exports fruit and vegetables into, inter alia, the
bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6) — the                      English market. In September 2001, the Icelandic health
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                        authorities informed the Commission of the existence of
J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,               pesticide residues in excess of the prescribed maximum level.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2002,
                                                                            On the basis of that information, the Commission sent a
in which it:                                                                notification, in the framework of the rapid alert system,
                                                                            concerning dicofol residues in apples from France via the
1.    dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                 Netherlands. In a second notification, and subsequent notifi-
                                                                            cations, the applicant was expressly named as the exporter.
2.    orders the applicant to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                The applicant claims that, by taking that action, the Com-
                                                                            mission acted wrongfully, thereby causing the applicant to
                                                                            suffer damage.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
The applicant considers that the Commission acted wrongfully                —     annul Mr Neil Kinnock’s letter of 22 November 2001
in so far as it failed to observe the procedure laid down in                      addressed to the presidents of all the trade unions
Directive 92/59. (1) In that regard, the applicant submits that                   informing them of his decision to ask the Commission to
the Commission did not establish that the apples tested had                       terminate the 1974 framework agreement on 5 December
originated from the applicant. In addition, there was no serious                  2001;
and immediate risk. The applicant states that the checks carried
out established only that there was an impermissible level of
dicofol. The applicant also claims that, by failing to consult
the parties concerned as quickly as possible, the Commission                —     annul Mr Erik Halskov’s decision No 47623 of 6 Decem-
acted in breach of Article 7(2) of Directive 92/59.                               ber 2001 refusing to grant the applicant leave to attend,
                                                                                on a mission basis, the meeting of 7 December 2001 on
                                                                                the ‘Comprehensive Package of Proposed Amendments
                                                                                to the Statute’;
The damage suffered by the applicant consists of loss sustained
in the English market, loss of profit, and harm to its reputation.
The applicant states that in the preceding year it had worked
hard to break into the English market and build up a                        —     rule on costs, expenses and fees and order the European
reputation. Its efforts have now been rendered useless. The                       Commission to pay them.
damage was evidently caused by the Commission’s wrongful
conduct since, following the notifications under the rapid alert
system, the applicant’s sales in the English market were
brought to an end.
( 1) Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product
     safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            By the present action, the applicant is contesting, in particular,
                                                                            the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001 whereby,
                                                                            according to the applicant and in so far as the A&D (Action &
                                                                            Défense) trade union is deprived of all or some of its
Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                           rights arising from its adhesion to the framework agreement
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       governing relations between the Commission and trade
                                                                            unions/staff organisations, in particular recognition of its
                                                                            representativity, participation in meetings at all levels and the
                           (Case T-191/02)                                  distribution of resources:
                           (2002/C 233/45)
                                                                            —     the agreement on relations between the Commission and
                                                                                trade unions/staff organisations of 20 September 1974 is
                     (Language of the case: French)                               terminated with effect from 5 December 2001;
                                                                            —     the Operational Rules on levels of consultation, the
                                                                                consultation body and related procedures (SEC (2000)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         2086/3) agreed between the Commission and the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        majority of the trade unions/staff organisations on 19 Jan-
European Communities on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                          uary 2000 are re-adopted;
residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                            —     the agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       made available to the Central Committee and local staff
                                                                                committees and the trade unions/staff organisations
                                                                                (SEC(2001)955/5) is ratified;
—      annul the decision of the College of Commissioners of
       5 December 2001 by which the agreement of 20 Septem-
       ber 1974 on relations between the Commission and trade
       unions/staff organisations is terminated with effect from            —     the provisions on strikes laid down in Annex 1 to the
       5 December 2001;                                                           1974 framework agreement are ratified;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 2004 in Case T-116/03 Oresto Montalto v Council of the European Union (Officials — Recruitment — Temporary agent — Vacancy notice — Recruitment procedure)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 November 2004
   in Case T-116/03 Oresto Montalto v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Temporary agent - Vacancy notice - Recruitment procedure)
   (2005/C 19/49)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-116/03, Oresto Montalto, official of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), residing in Alicante (Spain), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen and F. Anton) – application, first, for annulment of the Council decision of 23 May 2002 appointing an additional chairperson of a Board of Appeal and President of the Appeals Department of OHIM (OJ 2002 C 130, p. 2) and, secondly, for damages – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it:

               (1)

               Annuls the Council decision of 23 May 2002 appointing an additional Chairperson of a Board of Appeal and President of the Appeals Department of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               (2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               (3)

               Orders the Council to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case C-634/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 9 December 2011 — Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd v Quinn Investments Sweden AB and others

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 9 December 2011 — Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd v Quinn Investments Sweden AB and others
   (Case C-634/11)
   2012/C 73/28
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd

      Defendants: Quinn Investments Sweden AB, Sean Quinn, Ciara Quinn, Collette Quinn, Sean Quinn Junior, Brenda Quinn, Aoife Quinn, Stephen Kelly, Peter Darragh Quinn, Niall McPartland Indian Trust AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               The within reference concerns Article 28 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 (1) (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001’) (‘Article 28’) and the procedures to be adopted by a national court (the courts of ‘State A’) in adjudicating upon an objection under Article 28 to the jurisdiction of that court to hear and determine a set of proceedings (‘the third proceedings’) in circumstances where the courts of State A are:-

                           (a)

                           seised first of a set of proceedings (‘the first proceedings’) which may be related to proceedings (‘the second proceedings’) commenced before the Courts of another Member State (‘State B’); and

                           (b)

                           seised also of a set of proceedings (‘the third proceedings’) which may be related to the second proceedings; and

                           (c)

                           presented with an objection pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to the jurisdiction of the Courts of State A to hear and determine the third proceedings based on an argument that the second proceedings (before the Courts of State B) and the third proceedings (before the Courts of State A) are related actions within the meaning of the said Article 28.

               2.

               Specifically, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) is requested in relation to the following questions:

                           (1)

                           Whether it is necessary for the Courts of State A to await the outcome of an anticipated application to and decision by the Courts of State B as to whether or not the Courts of State B should stay or dismiss the second proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 prior to the Courts of State A taking a decision on whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings;

                           (2)

                           If it is not necessary for the Courts of State A to await the outcome of an anticipated application to and decision by the Courts of State B as to whether or not the Courts of State B should stay or dismiss the second proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 prior to the Courts of State A taking a decision on whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings, whether the Courts of State A are entitled to have regard to the fact of the first proceedings in deciding whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings;

                           (3)

                           In the event that the Courts of State B decide that they do have jurisdiction over the second proceedings, whether the Courts of State A are entitled to have regard to the fact of the first proceedings in deciding whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001;

                           (4)

                           Whether the fact that the third proceedings could have been (but were not) maintained as a counterclaim in the first proceedings by the Plaintiff in the third proceedings is a material factor and, if so, the proper considerations which the Courts of State A should afford to that factor in their determination as to whether they should decline jurisdiction over, or stay, the third proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.

      (1)  OJ L 12, p. 1


title: Case F-54/08: Action brought on 29 May 2008 — Bernard v Europol

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/62

         Action brought on 29 May 2008 — Bernard v Europol
   (Case F-54/08)
   (2008/C 223/118)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of Europol to extend the applicant's contract of employment for only the minimum period of 9 months.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 31 July 2007 to renew the applicant's contract of employment only until 1 June 2008 and the decision on the complaint of 29 February 2008;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.