title: Case C-423/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/37/EEC — Articles 3 and 11 — Public works concession contracts — Obligations regarding advertising — Extent of the obligations — Contract notice — Description of the object of the concession and of the location of the works — Additional works not expressly set out in the contract notice or in the tender specifications — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-423/07) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/37/EEC - Articles 3 and 11 - Public works concession contracts - Obligations regarding advertising - Extent of the obligations - Contract notice - Description of the object of the concession and of the location of the works - Additional works not expressly set out in the contract notice or in the tender specifications - Principle of equal treatment)
      (2010/C 161/04)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and M. Konstantinidis, and by S. Pardo Quintillán, and by M. Canal Fontcuberta, abogada)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

         Re:

      Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3 and Article 11(3) (6) (7)(11) and (12) of Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Infringement of the principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination — Works not covered by the concession — Award subsequent to award of concession

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by awarding to Iberpistas, on 5 November 1999

                              —

                              the construction of a third lane in each direction on the part of the toll section of the A-6 motorway between Villalba and the Valle de los Caídos junction,

                              —

                              the construction of a third reversible lane on the part of the toll section of the A-6 motorway between the Valle de los Caídos junction and the city of San Rafael, including the construction of a new tunnel, and

                              —

                              the construction of a fourth lane in each direction on the toll-free section of the A-6 motorway between Madrid and Villalba,
                              without those works having been listed in the object of the public works concession contract, as described in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or in the tender specifications, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 11(3) and (6) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, read in conjunction with Annex V thereto;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case F-109/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-109/11)
   2012/C 6/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009; more specifically, the part of the report issued by EUROSTAT for that period;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-22/15: Action brought on 6 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/42

         Action brought on 6 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-22/15)
   (2015/C 127/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision fixing the rights of the applicant to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision to cancel all reimbursement of the applicant’s annual travel expenses from 2014;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-503/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH v European Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-503/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 303/38
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-3/11: Action brought on 4 January 2011 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/18

         Action brought on 4 January 2011 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-3/11)
   2011/C 139/36
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s Decision of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as under the reason ‘Weaknesses in LPIS-GIS [Land Parcel Identification System and Geographic Information System respectively] system, performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions’ it applied financial corrections to several measures, excluding from European Union financing the sum of EUR 40 690 655,11 relating to expenditure incurred by the applicant in the financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward 10 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take account of information produced by the Portuguese authorities concerning the checks made in connection with the LPIS-GIS, on the basis of the risk analysis, in accordance with Article 27 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take account of information produced by the Portuguese authorities concerning the intensification of the checks made in connection with the LPIS-GIS in accordance with Article 26 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take account of information produced by the Portuguese authorities concerning the checks made in connection with the LPIS-GIS in accordance with the 75 %/90 % rule referred to in Article 24(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in finding serious and reasonable doubts as to the existence of inconclusive and/or poor checks, on the sole basis of a single special case in which a motorway was included in the eligible area.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in applying the ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts’ laid down in Document VI/5330/1997-PT, with the consequent non-observance of the principle of the equality of Member States.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in applying financial corrections over and above the expenditure under the Single Payment Scheme (‘the SPS’), financial year 2006, so including all the measures relating to the first and second pillars.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take into consideration the factors relating to the ‘Calculation of Sanctions’ in the light of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities showing fulfilment of the obligations under Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004, and shows also that there was no risk for the Fund, so that on this point too the contested decision constitutes a breach of the principle of proportionality.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in levelling a charge of deliberate failure to fulfil obligations in the light of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, which shows that the obligations under Article 53 of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 were wholly fulfilled.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in that it failed to take into account the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, showing compliance with Article 21 of Regulation No 2237/2003 for the year 2004 and with Article 13(5) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 for the year 2005, concerning checks on the minimum density of nut trees.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission relating to the corrections affecting amounts paid in connection with the Additional Amounts of Aid measure — meat premiums and SPS payments for special rights.


title: Case C-415/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2014 by Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 26 June 2014 in Case T-564/10 Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/5

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2014 by Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 26 June 2014 in Case T-564/10 Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission
   (Case C-415/14 P)
   2014/C 388/07
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellants: Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello- Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (represented by: J. Calheiros, advogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2014 in Case T-564/10 dismissing the proceedings brought by the appellants against the European Commission for the annulment of the Commission’s decision, adopted by its accounting officer by letter of 8 October 2010, in so far as that decision required that the financial guaranteed to be provided in accordance with Article 85 of Regulation (EC EURATOM) No 2342/2002 (1) should be a guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating, and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

               —

               Grant, further to the setting aside of the judgment under appeal, the appellants’ claims at first instance and, as a consequence, annul in part the decision adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer by letter of 8 October 2010 in so far as that decision required that the financial guaranteed to be provided in accordance with Article 85 of Regulation (EC EURATOM) No 2342/2002 should be a guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants rely on two grounds of appeal:

               1.

                  First ground of appeal — error of law in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, which dismissed as unfounded the appellants’ argument before the General Court to the effect that the decision adopted by the Commission on 8 October 2010 failed to state adequate reasons, in so far as it required the provision of a financial guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating.

                           —

                           The judgment under appeal recognises that the decision adopted on 8 October 2010 does not give express reasons for the requirement that the bank issuing the guarantee should have a credit rating. However, it is argued that the basis of the Commission’s reasoning relies on that very requirement.

                           —

                           Article 296 TFEU requires all legal acts, including decisions, to state the reasons on which they are based.

                           —

                           The ‘basis of the Commission’s reasoning’ takes as its starting point the grounds of the judgment, not contested measure itself.

                           —

                           That applies all the more so because the ‘protection of the financial interests of the Union’, which formed the ‘basis of the Commission’s reasoning’ may be adequately safeguarded in particular by means of the guarantee proposed by the appellants in the letter sent to the Commission on 3 September 2010.

                           —

                           Moreover, in 2010, when the Commission imposed that requirement, to choose as criterion for the provision of a bank guarantee simply the credit rating was at that time wholly inappropriate, so that that criterion, since it was open to question from an objective standpoint, called for a stronger, clearer and more specific statement of reasons.

                           —

                           Furthermore, since, where the Commission grants an additional period within which to make a payment, it does so in the exercise of its discretion, the requirement to give reasons is even more pronounced than that which applies when the Commission is exercising a circumscribed power.

                           —

                           It should be added that the decision does not refer to any Community rule on which such a requirement could be based.

                           —

                           In view of the fact that, as recognised in the judgment under appeal, the decision adopted by the Commission on 8 October 2010 does not contain any express reason for the requirement for the bank issuing the guarantee to have a credit rating, the judgment under appeal was incorrect in so far as it found that the contested measure was not vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons, as claimed by the appellants in the proceedings before the General Court.

               2.

                  Second ground of appeal — error of law in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, in so far as it dismissed as unfounded the appellants’ argument before the General Court alleging breach of the Treaty — the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           It is apparent from Article 85 of Regulation No 2342/2002 that, as long as the requirements and conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled, the person responsible on behalf of the Community for taking a decision (in this case, the accounting officer) must determine the request submitted to that person by the undertaking concerned for an additional specific period within which to complete payment and grant that request, as long as those requirements are satisfied and the lawful conditions for the granting of such permission fulfilled.

                           —

                           The ‘broad powers of discretion’ conferred on the Commission’s accounting officer under Article 85 of Regulation No 2342/2002 cover the determination of the request submitted to that person by the undertaking concerned for an additional specific period within which to complete payment and the granting of the request, not the type of bank guarantee which the Commission’s accounting officer considers acceptable, so that, in reviewing the contested measure, it is not sufficient merely to check whether the measure is manifestly inappropriate for the purpose of attaining the objectives pursued, as claimed, incorrectly, in the judgment under appeal.

                           —

                           An at-first-demand guarantee, along the lines of the model required by the Commission, issued by a credit institution, constitutes a proper and appropriate means of ensuring payment of the amounts due. Thus, the whole Portuguese legal system (and, in general, that of the other countries of the European Union) accepts the provision of a bank guarantee for the most diverse purposes, including that of suspending the execution of judicial decisions, in particular any enforcement proceedings brought by the Commission before the national courts and tribunals in connection with a failure to pay.

                           —

                           In the present case, the guarantee proposed by the appellants (and not accepted by the Commission) would be issued by the Banco Comercial Português, S.A., a credit institution having its head office in the European Union, subject to the rules of supervision and consolidation defined by the Community institutions. Thus, there seems to be no justification, in order to defend the Community’s rights, for ruling out the possibility of the guarantee being issued by the said bank and requiring it to be issued by a bank with long-term ‘AA’ rating.

                           —

                           Furthermore, the public is aware of the current situation in which the ratings of Portuguese banks have been affected by the change in the rating of the Portuguese Republic. Thus, there is no bank based in Portugal that fulfils the rating criteria (long-term ‘AA’) required in the Commission decision. That situation was referred to in the judgment under appeal, under the heading ‘Facts of the dispute’. Nevertheless, it was not taken into account in the grounds of that judgment.

                           —

                           Accordingly, the Commission decision does not fulfil the criterion of necessity (which constitutes an important dimension of the principle of proportionality) since, of the possible measures, the Commission opted for the one that, in the current circumstances, is most prejudicial to the interests of the appellants.

                           —

                           Thus, there is a clear lack of proportionality between the requirement imposed by the Commission (guarantee issued by a European bank with long-term ‘AA’ rating) and the objective sought (protection of the right of the Commission to receipt of the amounts due), so that the judgment under appeal erred in so far as it considered that the contested measure did not infringe the principle of proportionality.

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


title: Case T-70/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Axis v OHIM — Etra Investigación y Desarrollo (ETRAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ETRAX — Earlier national figurative marks containing the word elements ETRA I+D — Relative ground for refusal — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 and Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Axis v OHIM — Etra Investigación y Desarrollo (ETRAX)
      (Case T-70/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ETRAX - Earlier national figurative marks containing the word elements ETRA I+D - Relative ground for refusal - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 and Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Axis AB (Lund, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Etra Investigación y Desarrollo, SA (Valencia, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2007 (Case R 334/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Etra Investigación y Desarrollo, SA and Axis AB.

         Operative part of the order

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 November 2007 (Case R 334/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Etra Investigación y Desarrollo, SA and Axis AB;

                  2.

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Axis AB.

         (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-562/11: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — Ada Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Cancellation of international registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/23

         Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — Ada Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)
   (Case T-562/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Cancellation of international registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 336/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke and D. Botis, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Ada Cosmetic GmbH (Kehl, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Börjes-Pestalozza, then by R. Douglas Morton and E. Kessler, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2011 (Case R 2121/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG and Ada Cosmetic GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012


title: Case T-339/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Clotuche v Commission (Officials — Reassignment of a Director as a Principal Adviser — Interest of the service — Equivalence of posts — Reorganisation of Eurostat — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Clotuche v Commission
   (Case T-339/03) (1)

   (Officials - Reassignment of a Director as a Principal Adviser - Interest of the service - Equivalence of posts - Reorganisation of Eurostat - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 82/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gabrielle Clotuche (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon, G. Demez and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, agents)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 July 2003 to reassign the applicant from a post as Director to a post as Principal Adviser and of the Commission's decision of 1 October 2003 reorganising Eurostat, in so far as it does not include any measure reassigning the applicant as a Director, and, secondly, an application for compensation for the non-material harm suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR one by way of damages for breach of administration;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders the Commission to bear its own costs inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance, and one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-64/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Micro Shaping v OHIM (packaging) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Micro Shaping v OHIM (packaging)
      (Case T-64/09) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/72)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Micro Shaping Ltd (Goring-by-Sea, Worthing, West Sussex, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1063/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign packaging as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Micro Shaping Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-86/08: Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/26

         Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-86/08)
   (2008/C 142/47)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: B. Kondolaimos, S. Kharitaki, and by M. Tassopoulou)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to

               —

               annul or otherwise amend the Commission's decision of 20 December 2007, notified under No E(2007) 6514 final and published as Decision 2008/68/EC (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it imposes financial corrections on the Hellenic Republic as specified in the application;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it concerns the financial corrections imposed on it in the sectors: (a) fruit and vegetables, (b) guarantee accompanying measures, (c) failure to meet payment deadlines.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision should be annulled because it is unlawful, inasmuch as Community provisions were misinterpreted and misapplied, or it was based on an error as to the facts and incorrect assessment of the factual circumstances, or otherwise as having defective, insufficient and imprecise reasoning, undermining the legal basis of the decision; in addition it should be annulled because in imposing the corrections in question the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and exceeded the bounds of its discretion.
   In particular the applicant puts forward six grounds for annulment.
   As regards citrus processing, in view of the factual circumstances and the fact that the correction of 2 % imposed concerns the repetition of the procedure from the bilateral consultation stage, after the annulment of a similar Commission decision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-5/03 (1), the applicant alludes first to the fact that the Commission was in breach of its obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice under Article 233 EC and the principle of res iudicata, and also with the Community rules and guidelines for the clearance of accounts. The applicant also submits that the Commission did not have the necessary powers at the time, that the imposition of a correction for a shortcoming in supplementary checking was unlawful and, lastly, that the 24-month rule was infringed because of the erroneous categorisation of the letter of 1999 as a letter of conclusions.
   Secondly, the applicant alleges error as to the facts, insufficient reasoning, infringement of the principle of proportionality and that the Commission exceeded the bounds of its discretion in view of the fact that the alleged infringement (payment by cheque instead of bank transfer) concerns a shortcoming rather than the non-existence of supplementary controls, with no finding of unlawful payment, in conjunction with the date when it was effected.
   Thirdly, with regard to the correction in the sector of guarantee accompanying measures, the applicant alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements and otherwise alludes to the fact that at the time the Commission was not empowered to impose financial corrections retroactively for a period earlier than 24 months before the sending of the conciliation letter. Fourthly, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by insufficient reasoning, in so far as the conciliation letter merely refers to a shortcoming and in the summary there is doubt as to the exact reason for the correction.
   Fifthly, the applicant maintains that the Commission was in error as to the facts and imposed a correction of 5 % in respect of agro-environmental measures and the salvage measure in infringement of the Community rules and guidelines for the clearance of accounts, without justification, in breach of the principle of proportionality and exceeding the bounds of its discretion.
   Sixthly, in view of the automatic application of the scale of reductions in Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (2) concerning advances, and without any doubt being cast on the veracity of the reasons which prompted late payments, with the consequence that 100 % of expenditure on late payments was excluded, the applicant alleges infringement of the Community rules and guidelines for the clearance of accounts.

      (1)  Judgment of 7 July 2005 in Case C-5/03 Hellenic Republic v Commission [2005] ECR I-5925.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88 (OJ 1996 L 39, p. 5).


title: Case F-69/11: Action brought on 20 July 2011 — ZZ v Court of Auditors

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/52

         Action brought on 20 July 2011 — ZZ v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-69/11)
   2011/C 282/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to appoint the applicant to the post of Director of the Directorate for Human Resources and to appoint another candidate to that post

      Form of orders sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors to appoint another person to the to the post of Director of the Directorate for Human Resources and not to appoint the applicant to that post;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the material damage suffered consisting in the loss of financial rights connected to the contested decisions (including career and pension rights) and, therefore, the payment of those rights with effect from 1 January 2001;

               —

               order that the Court of Auditors pay symbolic damages of one euro as compensation for the non-material damage;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case T-126/06: Action brought on  24 April 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/34

         Action brought on 24 April 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-126/06)
   (2006/C 143/68)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Memorandum No 0147 (doc. No 1) of 13.02.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme PEP Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 01778 (doc. No 2) of 21.02.2006) of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. SPD Toscana Ob.2 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 001);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 01780 (doc. No 3) of 21.02.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. SPD Ob. 2 ‘Lazio’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 02114 (doc. No 4) of 03.03.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Lombardia (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 02983 (doc. No 5) of 31.03.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme PEP Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 010);

               —

               annul all related and prior measures;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission.


title: Case T-843/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014  — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v Commission

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/27

         Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v Commission
   (Case T-843/14)
   (2015/C 056/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH (Wieda, Germany) and Gascogne (Saint-Paul-les-Dax, France) (represented by: F. Puel and E. Durant, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the European Union is non-contractually liable for the proceedings before the General Court which failed to have regard to the requirement that the case be dealt with within a reasonable time;

         Consequently, it should:

               —

               order the European Union to pay full and sufficient compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicants have suffered as a result of the European Union’s unlawful conduct, corresponding to the following amounts, together with compensatory and default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, starting from the date when the application was submitted:

                           —

                           EUR 1 1 93  467 for losses suffered as a result of paying the additional legal interest applied to the nominal amount of the fine beyond a reasonable period;

                           —

                           EUR 1 87  571 for losses suffered as a result of making additional bank guarantee payments beyond a reasonable period;

                           —

                           EUR 2 0 00  000 for profits lost and/or losses suffered as a result of ‘uncertainty’, and

                           —

                           EUR 5 00  000 for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               In the alternative, if the Court finds that the amount of damage suffered needs to be re-assessed, it should order the commissioning of an expert’s report in accordance with Article 65(d), Article 66(1) and Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

               —

               In any event, the Court should order the European Union to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to the excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court, that is, infringement of their fundamental right to a hearing within a reasonable time.


title: Case T-613/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — VMS Deutschland v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/35

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — VMS Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-613/11)
   2012/C 32/71
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, G. Burwitz, M. Maier and P. Werner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275 final, in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging absence of prima facie selectivity of the measure
               The applicant submits in the context of the first plea inter alia that the provision in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) regarding the fiscal carry forward of losses by undertakings in difficulty, which are taken over by another undertaking with the objective of restructuring, is not selective. In the applicant’s view the provision does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU because it does not lay down any exception to the relevant reference system.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty is a general measure
               In that regard the applicant submits inter alia that the technical differentiation on the basis of an undertaking’s economic position and ability to pay is a technical provision which, as a general measure, cannot come within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. In the applicant’s opinion such a provision, in the context of an overall economic assessment, is capable of benefiting all undertakings even if, at a particular point in time, only some undertakings are in fact in a position to actually use the provision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the provision is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system
               The applicant submits in this respect that the provision in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system and does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU for that reason also.


title: Case F-82/10: Action brought on 22 September 2010 — Nolin v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/38

         Action brought on 22 September 2010 — Nolin v Commission
   (Case F-82/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slip of 1 January 2010 issued within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s salary slip RG/2009 and his salary slip of 01/2010;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-399/17: Action brought on 3 July 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/20

         Action brought on 3 July 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-399/17)
   (2017/C 293/25)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure that TPS-NOLO (Geobal) material shipped from the Czech Republic to Katowice, Poland, was transported back to the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24(2) and Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1);

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The TPS-NOLO (Geobal) material that was transported from the Czech Republic to Poland, which comes from hazardous wastes from a waste dump (the Ostramo lagoons), is deposited at another site in the Czech Republic and is classified as waste tar from refining, distilling or pyrolytic treatment of organic materials, is, according to the Polish authorities, waste falling within Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (‘the Waste Shipments Regulation’).

               2.

               In view of the fact that the Czech Republic disputes the classification of the substance in question as waste, on the ground of the registration of the material under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (2) (‘REACH’), a conflict situation has arisen, which is dealt with by Article 28(1) of the Waste Shipments Regulation, by providing that the material in question is to be treated as if it were waste.

               3.

               Registration of the material in accordance with registration under REACH does not ensure that use of the substance will not lead to a harmful overall effect on the environment or human health, or that the substance automatically ceases to be waste. Where there is no national decision that the substance in question has reached a state in which waste ceases to be waste, the registration of that substance under REACH may not be regarded as valid on the basis of Article 2(2) of REACH.

               4.

               As the substance in question was transported across the frontier without notification, the transport is to be regarded as an ‘illegal shipment’ under Article 2(35)(a) of the Waste Shipments Regulation. In that case, the competent authority of dispatch is to obtain information by an appropriate procedure to ensure that the waste in question is taken back in accordance with Article 24(2) of the regulation, which the Czech Republic unjustifiably refuses to do. That obligation is not precluded by Article 128 of REACH, which guarantees the free movement of substances, mixtures or articles within the meaning of Article 3 of REACH, since waste is expressly excluded from the scope of that regulation (see Article 2(2) of REACH).

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1.


title: Case F-108/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/56

         Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors
   (Case F-108/07)
   (2008/C 22/108)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Court of Auditors to renew the mandate of the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors for a further period of six years from 1 July 2007

               —

               in the alternative, annul the two measures allegedly constituting ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ of 8 December 2006 implementing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05, and of 12 July 2007, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12 March 2007

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the following facts: (i) the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors acted unlawfully; rather than referring the matter to the Anti-Fraud Office, he expressly refused to take measures or to examine the question when he had been informed, with documentary evidence, of the existence of a fraud to the detriment of the invalidity pensions system; (ii) an official exercised his powers in an unlawful manner; (iii) promotion decisions and their dates were repeatedly not published; (iv) the staff committee elections of 2004 and 2006 were unlawful for a number of reasons; (v) there were many instances of misuse of the promotion procedure, of usurpation of the power to appoint allowed to a head of unit, and of personal interests likely to compromise the independence of the appointing authority in nearly all its decisions; (vi) the ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ emanated from the personal interests of all the applicant's hierarchical superiors, from the concealment of the call to a colleague to exercise superior functions on an interim basis, and from failure to refer the matter to the Anti-Fraud Office; (vii) the appointing authority based the contested decisions on the same series of manifest errors as the intial decisions, which they confirm, relying on a judgment that does not have the force of res judicata and without refuting any of the applicant's arguments; (viii) the committees also involved in the assessment and promotion procedure were not informed of the compromised independence of the applicant's hierarchical superiors.


title: Case T-388/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/62

         Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket)
   (Case T-388/09)
   2009/C 282/115
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by S. Gonzáles Malabia and S. Rizzo, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 237/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The mark representing two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket for goods and services in classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned lacked inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case T-138/12: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Geipel v OHIM — Reeh (BEST BODY NUTRITION) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/49

         Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Geipel v OHIM — Reeh (BEST BODY NUTRITION)
   (Case T-138/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 26/98
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yves Geipel (Auerbach, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten and R. Pethke, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Jörg Reeh (Buxtehude, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2433/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Jörg Reeh and Yves Geipel.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


10.11.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
The Commission submits that the provisions of Articles 5(c)                    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply equally to live or dead                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
birds and to readily recognisable parts or derivatives of birds                Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of
and to their eggs which a person keeps on the territory of the                 the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
legislating Member State and which have been killed, captured                  87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
or otherwise acquired, or of which that person has obtained                    lations and administrative provisions of the Member
possession by any other means in a Member State other than                     States concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by
the legislating Member State, subject to Articles 1 and 9 as                   failing to communicate such provisions to the Com-
regards the prohibition on keeping refered to in Article 5(c)                  mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
and (e), and subject to Article 6(2) as regards the acts referred              obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
to in Article 6(1) of the directive. Consequently, Articles 5(c)         2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply to species and subspecies
of birds naturally occurring in the wild state in the European
territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies,              Pleas in law and main arguments
even though not naturally occurring in the wild state in
Belgium, and also to subspecies of birds naturally occurring in          According to Article 2(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of
the wild state only outside the European territory of the                Spain was to have brought into force the provisions necessary
Member States where the species to which they belong or                  to comply with it no later than 21 April 2001 and inform the
other subspecies of that species occur naturally in the wild             Commission immediately thereof.
state in the territory in question.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.
The period for transposing the directive expired on 16 April
1981.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 Removal from the register of Case C-412/00 (1)
    vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1).
                                                                                (2001/C 317/44)
                                                                         By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-412/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission                       (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                          (Case C-386/01)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-414/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/45)
                          (2001/C 317/43)
                                                                         By order of 10 September 2001 the President of the Fourth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 Octo-              has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-414/00:
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese
represented by I. Martı́nez del Peral, acting as Agent, with an          Republic.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of L. Escobar,
Wagner Centre C 254.                                                     (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.


               24.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/11

         Action brought on 22 December 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway
   (Case E-18/10)
   2011/C 58/05
   An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-2/07 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice;

               2.

               the Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               the application addresses the failure of Norway to comply with the judgment of the EFTA Court of 30 October 2007 in case E-2/07 in so far as it has not adopted adequate measures since the delivery of that judgment to ensure to pay correctly calculated pensions to all those who suffered as a result of Norway’s breach declared in the judgment,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority states that the Norwegian authorities have never denied or questioned the obligation to provide a remedy for those illegaly deprived of their rights from 1 January 1994 onwards as found by the EFTA Court,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has taken Norway an excessively long time to comply with the judgment of 30 October 2007. While the settlement of some or even many indvidual cases may be complex and require careful examination, it is clear that the Norwegian authorities have not taken the requisite steps and devoted appropriate resources to ensure expeditious compliance with the judgment.


title: Case C-449/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria
   (Case C-449/09)
   2010/C 100/21
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha

      Defendant: IPN Bulgaria OOD

      Question referred

   Is Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1), in so far is it confers on the trade mark proprietor the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with the trade mark, for example importing or exporting goods under the sign, to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor’s rights include the right to prohibit use of the trade mark without his consent through the importation of original goods, provided that the trade mark proprietor’s rights under Article 7 of the directive are not exhausted?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Case T-116/12: Action brought on 12 March 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/25

         Action brought on 12 March 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council
   (Case T-116/12)
   2012/C 126/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Tioxide Europe Ltd (Billingham, United Kingdom); Tioxide Europe Srl (Scarlino, Italy); Tioxide Europe SL (Huelva, Spain); and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Arts, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 of 19 December 2011 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (OJ L 349, p. 1), insofar as it suspends the import duty levied on rutile titanium dioxide containing by weight 90 % or more of titanium dioxide, not more than 4 % of aluminium hydroxide and not more than 6 % of silicon dioxide, under CN code 3206 11 00;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure in duty to provide reasons

                           —

                           By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Council has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the import duty in relation to the relevant products;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           By their second plea, the applicants consider that Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 infringes Articles 31 and 32 TFEU since the Council, by basing itself on an unlawful proposal of the Commission without any further examination of the relevant facts, has committed a manifest error of assessment;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of principle of proportionality

                           —

                           By their third plea, the applicants further submit that the Council has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a tariff suspension under the contested Regulation, as opposed to the less onerous measure available to it, i.e. a tariff quota, since ‘identical, equivalent or substitute products’ were being manufactured within the Union.


title: Case C-32/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 January 2010 — Toni Georgiev Semerdzhiev v Del-Pi-Krasimira Mancheva

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 January 2010 — Toni Georgiev Semerdzhiev v Del-Pi-Krasimira Mancheva
   (Case C-32/10)
   2010/C 100/28
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven Kasatsionen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Toni Georgiev Semerdzhiev

      Defendant: Del-Pi-Krasimira Mancheva

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Directive 90/314/EEC (1) applicable to the present case [the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings]?

               2.

               How is the term ‘other tourist services’ in Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted, and does that term cover the organiser’s obligation to insure the consumer?

                           —

                           What risks must be covered by the insurance contract concluded, on behalf of the consumer, between the organiser and the insurance company?

                           —

                           What type of insurance must be provided by the insurance contract concluded, on behalf of the consumer, between the organiser and the insurance company: a group insurance policy covering all the participants in the package tour or an individual insurance policy covering each individual participant in the package tour?

               3.

               Is the organiser’s obligation under Article 4(1)(b)(iv) of Directive 90/314/EEC to provide the consumer before the start of the tour with information on the optional conclusion of an insurance policy to cover the costs of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of an accident to be interpreted as meaning that it includes the organiser’s obligation to conclude an individual insurance policy with the consumer covering the costs of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of an accident?

               4.

               Is the organiser of the tour obliged under Directive 90/314/EEC to provide the consumer with the original insurance policy before the tour commences?

               5.

               How is the term ‘damage’ resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform, or the improper performance of, the contract in Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted?

               6.

               Does the term ‘damage’ resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform, or the improper performance of, the contract in Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC also cover liability in respect of non-material damage suffered by the consumer?

               7.

               How are the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted in the event of claims for compensation in respect of non-material damage on the ground of personal injury which are based on the failure to perform, or the improper performance of, the services under the contract, including the failure to provide the consumer with the original insurance policy, in the case where the latter does not provide for any limitation of liability to pay compensation?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).


title: Case T-506/14: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/49

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission
   (Case T-506/14) (1)

   (2016/C 343/67)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-327/05: Action brought on 30 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/7

         Action brought on 30 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-327/05)
   (2005/C 257/12)
   Language of the case: Danish
   An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N.B. Rasmussen and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force provisions which make intermediaries in the distribution chain liable under the same conditions as a manufacturer, contrary to Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed in its obligation to give full effect to that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Paragraph 10 of the Danish Produktansvarslov (Law on Product Liability) provides that an intermediary ‘is directly liable in respect of defective products vis-à-vis injured parties and subsequent intermediaries in the distribution chain’.
   The result of the Danish rules on the vicarious liability of intermediaries is that injured parties may bring an action directly against the intermediary (a term which is covered by ‘suppliers’, as defined in Article 3(3) of the directive), provided that the conditions governing an action in respect of defective product liability against the manufacturer are satisfied, that is to say, in so far as the injured party can establish that damage has been incurred as the result of a defective product. The issue as to whether the intermediary has or has not acted negligently is thus irrelevant in regard to the imposition of vicarious liability. The determinant factor is that liability in respect of the defective product can be imposed on the manufacturer.
   Any person on whom, as an intermediary, vicarious liability has been imposed, may, under Paragraph 11(3) of the Produktansvarslov, bring an action for indemnification against both the preceding intermediary and the manufacturer.
   It is the vicarious liability imposed on the intermediary that is contrary to the directive. The reason for this is that the directive provides that strict liability for defective products may be imposed on the manufacturer — and on the manufacturer alone. It is only in the instances indicated by the directive (Article 3(3)) that liability in respect of defective products can be imposed on the intermediary on an objective basis.
   The Danish rules diverge from that system by introducing strict liability to pay compensation in the form of strict vicarious liability for intermediaries in all cases in which liability for defective products could be imposed on a manufacturer on an objective basis.


title: Case C-153/16: Action brought on 15 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/3

         Action brought on 15 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-153/16)
   (2016/C 222/04)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought by the applicant

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by allowing an ongoing persistent situation of environmental and health insecurity, through the unsuitable storage of substantial quantities of used tyres together with other waste, including hazardous waste, and through the disposal thereof contrary to the requirements of the Landfill Directive, the Republic of Slovenia has infringed Article 12 (Disposal), Article 13 as regards waste management which takes into account the protection of human health and the environment, and Article 36(1) (Enforcement and penalties) of the Waste Framework Directive, as well as Article 5(3)(d) of the Landfill Directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Slovenia has allowed an ongoing persistent situation of environmental and health insecurity, through the unsuitable storage of substantial quantities of used tyres together with other waste, including hazardous waste, and through the disposal thereof contrary to the requirements of, first, the Landfill Directive and, second, the Waste Framework Directive.


title: Case T-397/10: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — ara v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure to submit the statement of grounds of appeal to the Board of Appeal within the prescribed time-limit Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting an application of the full re-establishment of the applicant's rights — Action manifestly lacking a legal basis)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — ara v OHIM
   (Case T-397/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Failure to submit the statement of grounds of appeal to the Board of Appeal within the prescribed time-limit Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting an application of the full re-establishment of the applicant's rights - Action manifestly lacking a legal basis)
   2011/C 331/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ara AG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allrounder SARL (Sarrebourg, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2010 (Case R 1543/2009-1) concerning the applicant's application for full re-establishment of the its rights

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking a legal basis.

               2.

               ara AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-107/00: Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.7.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                  The applicant is a Notariatsassessor (associate notary) in Baden-
                                                                            Württemberg (Germany) and acts in a legal advisory capacity
                          (Case T-107/00)                                   there. In 1994 he applied for admission to the aptitude test in
                                                                            accordance with the German Law for admission to the
                                                                            profession of Rechtsanwalt (Eignungsprüfungsgesetz). That
                          (2000/C 192/32)
                                                                            application was refused by the German authorities and courts
                                                                            at several instances. The applicant now argues that the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Eignungsprüfungsgesetz was enacted in implementation of
                                                                            Directive 89/48/EEC (1). He maintains that, after the dismissal
                                                                            decisions by the German authorities and courts, he is individu-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ally and directly affected by that directive, and that Article 1 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  the directive infringes Article 12 EC and several fundamental
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                      rights. The provision gives nationals of other Member States,
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), with Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   who hold a diploma satisfying the formal requirements of the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon,               directive, access to the profession of German Rechtsanwalt by
Brussels.                                                                   passing the aptitude test, whereas German nationals holding
                                                                            diplomas of equal value are denied that possibility. In the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 applicant’s submission, that constitutes an inequality in treat-
                                                                            ment that should lead to the annulment of the directive.
— annul the implied rejection of the request for review
     submitted by the CIF to the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989, p. 16.
     Commission on 20 January 2000 and also, if appropriate,
     the letter, dated 17 February 2000, from Mary E. Preston;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                            Action brought on 2 May 2000 by British American
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Tobacco International (Investments) limited against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-40/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v                                           (Case T-111/00)
Commission.
                                                                                (2000/C 192/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt                            European Communities on 2 May 2000 by British American
          against the Council of the European Union                         Tobacco International (Investments) limited (London,
                                                                            England), represented by Mr. Scott Crosby of Kemmler Rapp
                          (Case T-109/00)                                   Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.
                          (2000/C 192/33)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — annul the Decision of the Commission of 8 March 2000
                                                                                refusing access to the minutes of the Excise Duty Com-
                    (Language of the case: German)                               mittee of its meetings of 29-30 April 1998 and
                                                                                28-29 October 1999 relating to the apparent decision of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                          the Committee to classify expanded tobacco as an excisable
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       product and to confirm that apparent decision respectively;
Communities on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt, residing in
Schwäbisch Hall (Germany), represented by Joachim Schorpp,                  — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
Rechtsanwalt, Delitzsch (Germany).                                               to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December
     1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-                The applicant explains that, as a tobacco company, it has a
     education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-                       vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
     fessional education and training of at least three years’              tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
     duration void in relation to the professions of Rechtsanwalt           of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1) and thus an excisable
     (attorney) and Patentanwalt (patent agent).                            product. The applicant considers the product an intermediary


title: Case T-293/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  31 January 2006  — Giulietti v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Exclusion from the competition — Illegality of the competition notice — Inadmissibility — Professional experience — Full-time activity)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Giulietti v Commission
   (Case T-293/03) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Exclusion from the competition - Illegality of the competition notice - Inadmissibility - Professional experience - Full-time activity)
   (2006/C 86/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carla Giulietti (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and P.Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment, firstly, of the decision of the selection board for competition COM/A/6/01 to exclude the applicant from that competition on the ground of lack of professional experience, communicated by letter of 16 October 2002; secondly, of the confirmatory decision of that selection board, following an application for reconsideration submitted by the applicant, communicated by letter of 21 November 2002, and, thirdly, of the express decision rejecting the complaint of 11 June 2003.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003


title: Case T-556/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)
      (Case T-556/13) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 August 2013 (Case R 2064/2012-14) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Original Eau de Cologne as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-234/10: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Ebro Puleva v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/30

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Ebro Puleva v Commission
   (Case T-234/10)
   2010/C 195/48
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ebro Puleva, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision against which these proceedings are brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission; T-221/10 IBERDROLA v Commission; and T-225/10 BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA v Commission.
   The pleas in law and the principal arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.


title: Case C-384/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 August 2007 — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 August 2007 — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit
   (Case C-384/07)
   (2007/C 283/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC require that the national court should, on grounds of the prohibition contained in that provision on putting State aid into effect, refuse further grants of State aid to a beneficiary of aid who under national law is in principle entitled to aid, although the Commission, while regretting the non-notification of the aid, has not adopted either a decision under Article 4(2) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 or a measure under Article 14 of that regulation, and the case file does not reveal any infringement of the rights of third parties?

               2.

               Does the prohibition under Article 88(3) EC on putting State aid into effect preclude the application of a provision of national law, if such application is based on the new version of that law, which the Commission has held to be compatible with the common market, although the measure concerns periods of time before that new version and the amendments which were decisive for the declaration of compatibility were not yet applicable to that period, and the case file does not reveal any infringement of the rights of third parties?


title: Case C-194/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I, Germany) — Robert Nicolaus Abt and Others v Hypo Real Estate Holding AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Relevance of the question — No jurisdiction)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/8

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I, Germany) — Robert Nicolaus Abt and Others v Hypo Real Estate Holding AG
   (Case C-194/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Relevance of the question - No jurisdiction)
   2011/C 252/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericth München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Robert Nicolaus Abt, Danieal Kalwarowskyj, Mangusta Beteiligungs GmbH, Karsetn Trippel, VC-Services GmbH, Henning Hahmann

      Defendant: Hypo Real Estate Holding AG

      Interveners: Klaus E. H. Zapf, Inge Jung-Arend

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Munich I — Interpretation of Article 297 EC and of Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17) — Period for convocation of general meeting of a listed company — National legislation, ceasing to have effect on the expiry of the transposition period for the directive, which provides for a shorter convocation period than the minimum period under the directive — Provision likely seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive, in the light of the national legislation according to which some decisions of the general meeting remain valid after being registered in the commercial register, even in the event of annulment following legal action

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericth München I.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-5/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/47

      Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)
      (Case T-5/15)
      (2015/C 073/58)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 491

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 491 ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-283/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria) lodged on 8 June 2011 — Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria) lodged on 8 June 2011 — Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk
   (Case C-283/11)
   2011/C 269/47
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundeskommunikationssenat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sky Österreich GmbH

      Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk

      Question referred

   Is Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (1) compatible with Articles 17 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Protocol No 1 to the ECHR)?

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.