title: Case T-48/10 P: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Meister v OHIM (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2008 promotion procedure — Decision awarding points in the promotion procedure — Mention of points accumulated in previous promotion procedures — Distortion of the facts — Burden of costs — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/23

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Meister v OHIM
   (Case T-48/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2008 promotion procedure - Decision awarding points in the promotion procedure - Mention of points accumulated in previous promotion procedures - Distortion of the facts - Burden of costs - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 55/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and E. Winter, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and I-A-2-0000, seeking for that order to be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Herbert Meister is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-517/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 30 — Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass — Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information — Terms of reference of the hearing officer — Decision 2011/695/EU — Article 8 — Confidentiality — Information from a leniency application — Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-517/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Articles 101 and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 30 - Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass - Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information - Terms of reference of the hearing officer - Decision 2011/695/EU - Article 8 - Confidentiality - Information from a leniency application - Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 309/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH (represented by: L. Garzaniti, F. Hoseinian and A. Burckett St Laurent, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, P. Van Nuffel and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-452/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 2, 5 and 7 — Right to compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight — Length of delay — Concept of ‘arrival time’)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/20

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning
      (Case C-452/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 2, 5 and 7 - Right to compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight - Length of delay - Concept of ‘arrival time’))
      (2014/C 395/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesgericht Salzburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

         Respondent: Ronny Henning

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

         (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-263/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition — Directive 96/61/EC — Article 9(4) — Article 13(1) — Annex I — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Concepts of application of the best available techniques and periodic reconsideration of the conditions for an operating permit )

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-263/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition - Directive 96/61/EC - Article 9(4) - Article 13(1) - Annex I - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Concepts of ‘application of the best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration of the conditions for an operating permit’)
   (2008/C 22/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) and of Annex I thereto — Concepts of application of the ‘best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration’ of the conditions for an operating permit
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and of Annex I thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-602/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García
   (Case C-602/13)
   2014/C 31/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Defendants: Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness[,] must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair contractual clause concerning default interest, declare that as a consequence any type of default interest is invalid, even that which may result from the subsidiary application of a national provision such as Article 1108 of the Civil Code, the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013, in conjunction with Article 114 of the Law on mortgages, or Article 4 of Royal Decree-Law No 6/2012, and regard itself as not being bound by any recalculation which the professional may have carried out in accordance with the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/13?

               2.

               Must the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 be interpreted as meaning that it may not constitute an obstacle to the protection of consumer interests?

               3.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness[,] must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair clause concerning accelerated repayment, declare that that clause does not form part of the contract and draw the conclusions inherent in such a finding[,] even where the professional has waited the minimum time provided for in the national provision?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Joined Cases C-333/15 and C-334/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)) — María del Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Agricultural Policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Articles 43 and 44 — Payment entitlements based on areas — Hectares eligible for area aid — Permanent pasture — National legislation making the eligibility of permanent pasture areas which exceed the forage areas initially taken into account for the purposes of determining the payment entitlements subject to conditions that they be used for the purposes of rearing livestock on the farm)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/16

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)) — María del Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
   (Joined Cases C-333/15 and C-334/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Agricultural Policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Articles 43 and 44 - Payment entitlements based on areas - Hectares eligible for area aid - Permanent pasture - National legislation making the eligibility of permanent pasture areas which exceed the forage areas initially taken into account for the purposes of determining the payment entitlements subject to conditions that they be used for the purposes of rearing livestock on the farm))
   (2016/C 296/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María del Pilar Planes Bresco

      Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006 must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prevents areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer which exceed the area of permanent pasture initially taken into account for determining the amount of her payment entitlements per hectare being taken into account as hectares eligible for area aid for an agricultural year, unless the farmer demonstrates that those areas are actually being used for the purposes of rearing livestock on her farm in that agricultural year.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015


title: Case C-456/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 43 EC — Psychotherapists admitted to practise — System of quotas — Derogating transitional rules — Proportionality — Admissibility)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-456/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Psychotherapists admitted to practise - System of quotas - Derogating transitional rules - Proportionality - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 22/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and S. Grünheid, Agents

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Transitional rules concerning the authorisation of psychotherapists which require previous activities carried out under the national sickness insurance scheme in order for authorisation to be obtained
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court

               1.

               Declares that, by applying the transitional provisions or ‘established rights’, which permit psychotherapists to obtain authorisation or admission to practise independently of the applicable rules of the statutory sickness insurance scheme, solely to psychotherapists who have practised in a region of Germany under the German statutory sickness insurance schemes and by failing to take account of comparable or similar professional activity performed by psychotherapists in other Member States, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-315/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014  — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Radiator) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a radiator for heating — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Overall impression not different — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — No scope for innovation — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Radiator)
   (Case T-315/12) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a radiator for heating - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - No scope for innovation - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 129/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by F. Mattina initially, then P. Bullock, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana) (represented by L. Gazzola, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It Srl and Tubes Radiatori Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;

               4.

               Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Removal from the register of T-111/95

text:
C 7/28               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
it has been shown that the Council and the Commission               Majerus-Weis, residing at Christnach (Luxembourg); 42.
have rendered the European Union liable by the                      Henri Mangen, residing at Bertrange (Luxembourg); 43.
commission of highly reprehensible acts and the failure to          Guy Mangen, residing at Berg (Luxembourg); 44. Jean-
adopt measures which would have allowed rectification in            Paul Martzen, residing at Merscheid (Luxembourg);
good time of a catastrophic situation endangering not only          45. Aloyse Marx, residing at Garnich (Luxembourg);
human health but also the public's faith in the institutions        46. Camille Mathey, residing at Stegen (Luxembourg);
governing them. They state that the acts of commission              47. Jean-Marcel Mettendorff, residing at Mecher
and omission by the Council and the Commission have                 (Luxembourg); 48. Jean-Marie Meyrer, residing at
undermined the confidence of the inhabitants of the Union           Welfrange (Luxembourg); 49. Marc Meyer-Ernzen,
in the basic foodstuffs produced in it and so created an            residing at Echternach (Luxembourg); 50. ReneÂ Molitor,
unreasonable fear of those products.                                residing at Berndorf (Luxembourg); 51. Ets. Nicolay
                                                                    FreÁres CEA, established at Reuland (Luxembourg); 52.
The applicants state that, as a result of that misconduct,          Armand Noe, residing at Hachiville (Luxembourg); 53.
all producers of bovine meat and all producers of cows'             Jos Olinger, residing at Ettelbrück (Luxembourg); 54. Ets.
milk have suffered a direct loss of revenue from their              Olinger and Neu GA, established at Grosbous
farming activities of between 25 % and 30 % over a                  (Luxembourg); 55. Georges Peping, residing at Ersange
period of at least three years. They estimate the loss per          (Luxembourg); 56. Ed Praus, residing at Koetschette
undertaking per year as between Lfrs 750 000 and                    (Luxembourg); 57. Emile Raus, residing at Ehlange/Mess
1 500 000, but without prejudice to a subsequent expert's           (Luxembourg); 58. Ets. Sopibo (Louis Boonen),
report. Each producer is therefore claiming three years'            established at Haller (Luxembourg); 59. Nico Schank-
losses of Lfrs 1 000 000, that is to say Lfrs 3 000 000.            Neser, residing at Hautbellain (Luxembourg); 60. Camille
                                                                    Schiltz, residing at Bourglinster (Luxembourg); 61. Robert
                           ANNEX                                    Schmitz-Georges, residing at Marnach (Luxembourg);
                                                                    62. Ets. Sopraco SC, established at Manternach
1. Robert Mehlen, residing at Manternach (Luxembourg);              (Luxembourg); 63. Anne Steichen-Leclere, residing at
2.    Wim      Albers,   residing     at   Boevang/Clervaux         Mondercange (Luxembourg); 64. Etc. Savaco SC,
(Luxembourg); 3. AndreÂ Asseray, residing at Pratz                  established at Colpach-Bas (Luxembourg); 65. Raymond
(Luxembourg); 4. Jos Bich-Mathes, residing at Betzdorf              Thull, residing at Alzingen (Luxembourg); 66. Nico
(Luxembourg); 5. Gusty Biren, residing at Luxembourg; 6.            Turmes, residing at Knaphoscheid (Luxembourg); 67. Jean
Nico Brack, residing at Eschdorf (Luxembourg); 7. Severin           Weiler, residing at Hobscheid (Luxembourg); 68. Norbert
Boonen, residing at Elvange (Luxembourg); 8. Ets.                   Welter, residing at Bourglinster (Luxembourg); 69. Marc
Capriso SC, established at Canach (Luxembourg); 9. Leon             Zenner, residing at Lipperscheid (Luxembourg); 70. LeÂon
Clees and Son, residing at Allerborn (Luxembourg); 10.              Zigrand, residing at Niederpallen (Luxembourg); 71. Jean-
Peter Dahmen, residing at Mützenich (Federal Republic of            Claude Zinnen, residing at Savelborn (Luxembourg).
Germany); 11. Robert Duhr-Arendt, residing at
Manternach (Luxembourg); 12. Jean Dupont, residing at
Diekirch (Luxembourg); 13. Camille and Paul Eicher,
residing at Marnach (Luxembourg); 14. Alphonse Elsen,
residing at Goeblange (Luxembourg); 15. Nic Erpelding,                       Removal from the register of T-111/95 (1)
residing at Oberwampach (Luxembourg); 16. Peter Feinen,                                       (98/C 7/72)
residing at Rommersheim (Federal Republic of Germany);
17. Alphonse Ferber, residing at Buschrodt (Luxembourg);                            (Language of the case: French)
18. Marcel Ferring, residing at Betzdorf (Luxembourg);              By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the First
19. Henri Frank, residing at Garnich (Luxembourg);                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
20. Georges Friederich, residing at Aspelt (Luxembourg);            Communities ordered the removal from the register of
21. Josy Gengler, residing at Koerich (Luxembourg);                 Case T-111/95: Pierre Jaminon v. Council of the European
22. Gerekens FreÁres, residing at Reichlange (Luxembourg);          Union and Commission of the European Communities.
23. Ed. Gillen, residing at Manternach (Luxembourg);
24. Jean-Marie Godelet, residing at Ell (Luxembourg);               (1) OJ C 189, 22. 7. 1995.
25. Charles Goedert, residing at Ospern (Luxembourg);
26. Fernand Goedert, residing at Ell (Luxembourg);
27. Jacques Greisch-Schmidt, residing at Sanem
(Luxembourg); 28. Louis Guth, residing at Hivange
(Luxembourg); 29. Marc Hansen, residing at Lellig                            Removal from the register of T-156/97 (1)
(Luxembourg); 30. Hilgert-Schmidt, residing at Olm                                            (98/C 7/73)
(Luxembourg); 31. Ets. Hogemav SC, established at
Imbringen (Luxembourg); 32. Jules Jungels, residing at                             (Language of the case: German)
Oetrange (Luxembourg); 33. Mathias and Heinrich Kaut,
                                                                    By order of 12 November 1997, the President of the
residing at Burg-Reuland (Belgium); 34. Emile Kieffer,
                                                                    Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
residing at Reichlange (Luxembourg); 35. Guy Kneip,
                                                                    European Communities ordered the removal from the
residing at Beiler (Luxembourg); 36. Marcel Laplume,
                                                                    register of Case T-156/97: Achim Berge v. Commission of
residing at Asselborn (Luxembourg); 37. Edy LoeÈsch-
                                                                    the European Communities.
Eischen, residing at Buschrodt (Luxembourg); 38. Joseph
Lux, residing at Holzem (Luxembourg); 39. AndreÂ
                                                                    (1) OJ C 228, 26. 7. 1997.
Majerus, residing at Mecher (Luxembourg); 40.Servais
Majerus, residing at Kuborn (Luxembourg); 41. Alphonse


title: Case C-30/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Seven Towns Ltd (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Seven Towns Ltd
   (Case C-30/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity))
   (2017/C 014/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Ruhl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Seven Towns Ltd (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, ügyvédek)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 November 2014, Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (T-450/09, EU:T:2014:983);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Seven Towns Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-450/09 and to the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-64/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga — Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais, S.A.

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga — Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais, S.A.
   (Case C-64/17)
   (2017/C 112/38)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saey Home & Garden NV/SA

      Defendant: Lusavouga — Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1

               Must the action be brought before the Belgian courts, in accordance with the basic rule set out in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, (1) because Belgium is the Member State in which the defendant has its seat and is in fact domiciled?

               2

               Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and Portugal is the Member State where the mutual obligations under the agreement should have been performed?

               3

               Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and Spain is the Member State where the mutual obligations under the agreement should have been performed?

               4

               Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between the applicant and the defendant, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were due to be delivered in Portugal, and were actually delivered there on 21 January 2014?

               5

               Must the action be brought before the Belgian courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between the applicant and the defendant, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were delivered by Saey to Lousavaga in Belgium?

               6

               Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between Lousavaga and Saey, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were intended to be delivered to Spain, pursuant to transactions carried out in that Member State?

               7

               Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), second indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between Lousavaga and Saey, took the form of a supply of services by Lousavaga to Saey, with the former promoting business that was indirectly in the latter’s interests?

               8

               Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), second indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between Lousavaga and Saey took the form of a supply of services by Lousavaga to Saey, with the former promoting business that was indirectly in the latter’s interests through activity carried out in Spain?

               9

               Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and the dispute between Lousavaga and Saey is comparable to a dispute between a principal (or ‘grantor’ of the concession) and an agent in Portugal?

               10

               Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and the dispute between Lousavaga and Saey is comparable to a dispute between a principal (or ‘grantor’ of the concession) and an agent deemed to be situated in Spain because the contractual obligations are to be performed there?

               11

               Must the action be brought before the Belgian courts, specifically before a court in Kortrijk, in accordance with Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), since under point 20 of the general conditions applicable to all the sales made by Saey to Lousavaga the parties entered into an agreement conferring jurisdiction, which was in writing and fully valid under Belgian law, according to which ‘any dispute of any nature whatsoever shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Kortrijk’?

               12

               Under the provisions of Sections 2 to 7 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts because the main connecting factors of the contractual relationship between the applicant and the defendant are with the territory and legal system of Portugal?

               13

               Under the provisions of Sections 2 to 7 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), must the action be brought before the Spanish courts because the main connecting factors of the contractual relationship between the applicant and the defendant are with the territory and legal system of Spain?

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


title: Case T-615/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of the outline of a crest) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing the outline of a crest — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3)of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of the outline of a crest)
   (Case T-615/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing the outline of a crest - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3)of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 038/65)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2014 (Case R 2500/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing the outline of a crest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Fútbol Club Barcelona is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 April 2012 in Case E-15/10 — Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Market for business-to-consumer over-the-counter parcel delivery — Distribution network — Exclusivity agreements — Conduct liable to eliminate competition on the market — Justification — Duration of infringement — Fine)

text:
               11.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 307/25

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 18 April 2012
   in Case E-15/10
   Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Market for business-to-consumer over-the-counter parcel delivery — Distribution network — Exclusivity agreements — Conduct liable to eliminate competition on the market — Justification — Duration of infringement — Fine)
   2012/C 307/11
   In Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of Decision No 322/10/COL of 14 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 18 April 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Sets the fine imposed by Article 2 of Decision No 322/10/COL of 14 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak) on Posten Norge AS at EUR 11 112 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders Posten Norge AS to bear its own costs and to pay 75 % of ESA’s costs and the costs of Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS;

               4.

               Orders ESA to bear the remainder of its own costs.


title: Case C-190/06: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/20

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications
   (Case C-190/06) (1)

   (2007/C 247/28)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-185/16: Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/36

         Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL)
   (Case T-185/16)
   (2016/C 243/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Make up for ever SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ — EU trade mark No 3 371 341

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3222/20014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               conclude that the semi-figurative EU trade mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ No 3 371 341 is valid for all of the goods and services covered by the filing;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               refer the case back to the EUIPO for further action, if necessary;

               —

               order the company L’Oréal to pay the costs arising from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the present proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 27 March 1997 by José Baiges Planas and 16 others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-77/97)

text:
No C 166/20              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   31 . 5 . 97
restoration of competition with, for example, animals                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reared in the Netherlands, which, at a weight of 138
kilograms, will be capable of being sold on the French                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
market at a higher price, having regard not only to the                      Case T- 16/97 ( M.
number of additional kilograms but also to the higher
price per kilogram paid for animals with superior physical                   (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
characteristics, for which a premium of ECU 60 is to be
paid .
O OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, pp . 20, 21 and 22 respectively.
( 2 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal .
( 3 ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 200/97 of 31 January 1997              Action brought on 28 March 1997 by F. Javier Maetzu
      amending Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed             Nieva against the . Commission of the European
      rules for the application of premium schemes in the beef and                                         Communities
      veal sector ( OJ No L 31 , 1 . 2 . 1997, p. 62 ).                                                 ( Case T-78/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/41 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Jose Baiges Planas                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
and 16 others against the Commission of the European                         Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
                               Communities                                   by F. Javier Maetzu Nieva, residing in Brussels,
                                                                             represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                            ( Case T-77/97)                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                              ( 97/C 166/40                                  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                                rejecting the applicant's request that it give
An action against the Commission of the European                                  consideration to the possible application of Article 31
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997
by Jose Baiges Planas, residing in Brussels, Viviane Baretti-                — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Piazzi, residing at Rhode St Genese ( Belgium ), David                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Broderick, residing in Brussels, Alessandro Buttice,                              expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
residing in Brussels, Peter Grasmann, residing in Brussels,
Timothy Hayes, residinig at Wezembeek-Oppem                                  — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 ( Belgium ), Louis Hersom, residing in Brussels, Owen
Jones, residing in Brussels, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot,                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
residing at Bereldange ( Luxembourg), Saturno Mallia,
residing at Overijse ( Belgium ), Fernardo Mazza, residing
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Yasmine Pire, residing in
                                                                             Case T- 16/97 (').
 Brussels, William Richer, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ),
Josefa Rodriguez Portero, residing in Brussels, Robert
                                                                             H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
 Smyth, residing at Sterrebeek ( Belgium), Alain Van
 Hamme, residing at Grimbergen ( Belgium ), and Fionnuala
Walker, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert
 Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de
 Nassau .
                                                                             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Michael A. Köhler
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                                                             ( Case T- 79/97 )
                                                                                ( 971C 166/42 )
 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request                                     (Language of the case: French)
       to be regraded,
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — annul the Commission's                   decision    rejecting their       Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
        administrative complaint,                                             by Michael A. Köhler, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                              ( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .


title: Case F-83/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — ZZ and Others v EIB

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/34

         Action brought on 1 August 2012 — ZZ and Others v EIB
   (Case F-83/12)
   2012/C 295/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decisions to distribute awards to the applicants pursuant to the new performance system resulting from the decision of 14 December 2010 of the Board of Directors and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 of the Management Committee and, second, subsequent application for the defendant to be ordered to pay the difference in remuneration, and damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions to distribute awards to the applicants pursuant to the new performance system resulting from the Board of Directors’ decision of 14 December 2010 and the Management Committee’s decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011, the individual award decision being contained in the April 2012 notice, brought to the attention of the persons concerned on 22 April 2012 at the earliest;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay the difference between the remuneration resulting from the Board of Directors’ decision of 14 December 2010 and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011, and that paid in application of the preceding bonus system, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 22 April 2012 until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1.5% of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-183/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 179 and 213 — Reclassification by the national tax authority of a transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation making the exercise of the right of deduction subject to the identification of the trader concerned for VAT purposes and to the filing of a tax return in respect of that tax)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
   (Case C-183/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 179 and 213 - Reclassification by the national tax authority of a transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - National legislation making the exercise of the right of deduction subject to the identification of the trader concerned for VAT purposes and to the filing of a tax return in respect of that tax))
   (2015/C 294/12)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean

      Respondent: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national tax authority from deciding, following a tax audit, to subject transactions to value added tax and to impose the payment of surcharges, provided that that decision is based on clear and precise rules and that that authority’s practice has not been such as to give rise, in the mind of a prudent and well-informed trader, to a reasonable expectation that that tax would not be levied on such transactions, this being a matter for the referring court to determine. The surcharges applied in such circumstances must comply with the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax precludes, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, national rules under which the right to deduct input value added tax, due or paid on goods and services used in the context of taxed transactions, is refused to the taxable person, who must nevertheless pay the tax that he ought to have recovered, for the sole reason that he was not identified for value-added-tax purposes when he carried out those transactions, so long as he has not been duly identified for value-added-tax purposes and the tax return for the tax due has not been filed.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 February 1998 in Case C-4/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division): Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation v. Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (Fisheries - Hague Preferences - TACs - Cod and whiting - Discretion of the Community legislature - Relative stability - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

text:
C 94/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.3.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, for a
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Northern Ireland Fish Producers'
                     of 19 February 1998                             Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland
       in Case C-309/95: Commission of the European                  Fishermen's Federation and Department of Agriculture for
       Communities v. Council of the European Union,                 Northern Ireland Ð on the validity of Council Regulation
             supported by the French Republic (1)                    (EC) No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain
                                                                     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable
   (Exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France)            catches for 1995 and certain conditions under which they
                         (98/C 94/07)                                may be fished (OJ L 363, 31.12.1994, p. 1), on the
                                                                     validity of Annex VII to the resolution of 3 November
                                                                     1976 adopted by the Council at The Hague and on the
                (Language of the case: French)                       interpretation of the priniciple of State liability for damage
                                                                     occasioned to individuals by breaches of Community law
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð the Court: composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
          published in the European Court Reports)                   President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen
                                                                     (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
In Case 309/95: Commission of the European
                                                                     Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Communities (Agents: GeÂrard Rozet and Jean-Paul
                                                                     Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Keppenne) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Rüdiger Bandilla and Diego Canga Fano), supported by
                                                                     19 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
the French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and
FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð application for the annulment of the
Council's decision of 22 June 1995 on the granting of                1. The validity of the allocation of cod and whiting
exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France Ð                    quotas in Area VIIa by Council Regulation (EC)
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                     No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn                 fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total
(Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.                      allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given                  under which they may be fished is not dependent on
a judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:                              whether Annex VII to the resolution of 3 November
                                                                          1976 adopted by the Council at The Hague was
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                             properly adopted.
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;                           2. Consideration of Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 has
                                                                          revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect its
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                      validity.
(1) OJ C 315, 25.11.1995.                                            (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                     of 19 February 1998                                                    (First Chamber)
in Case C-4/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's
Bench Division): Northern Ireland Fish Producers'                    in Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH v.
Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
Fishermen's Federation v. Department of Agriculture for
                     Northern Ireland (1)                                            (Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(Fisheries Ð Hague Preferences Ð TACs Ð Cod and                                               (98/C 94/09)
whiting Ð Discretion of the Community legislature Ð
Relative stability Ð Principles of proportionality and non-                         (Language of the case: German)
                        discrimination)
                         (98/C 94/08)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: English)                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-4/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             In Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH, a
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice in                   company incorporated under German law, established in


title: Case C-42/12 P: Order of the Court of 29 November 2012 — Václav Hrbek v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd, formerly The Outdoor Group Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/8

         Order of the Court of 29 November 2012 — Václav Hrbek v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd, formerly The Outdoor Group Ltd
   (Case C-42/12 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)
   2013/C 108/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Václav Hrbek (represented by: M. Sabatier, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd, formerly The Outdoor Group Ltd (represented by: M.S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 in Case T-434/10 Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT), by which the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the appellant against Decision R 1441/2009-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010, rejecting the action brought against the decision of the opposition division partially refusing registration of the figurative mark comprising the word elements ‘ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT’ for goods in Classes 18, 24, 25 and 28 in the context of the opposition made by the holder of the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘alpine’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Václav Hrbek is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case C-46/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2008 — Carmen Media Group Ltd v Land Schleswig-Holstein and Minister for the Interior for the Land Schleswig-Holstein

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2008 — Carmen Media Group Ltd v Land Schleswig-Holstein and Minister for the Interior for the Land Schleswig-Holstein
   (Case C-46/08)
   (2008/C 128/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carmen Media Group Ltd

      Defendants: Land Schleswig-Holstein and Minister for the Interior for the Land Schleswig-Holstein
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that reliance on the freedom to provide services requires that a service provider be permitted, in accordance with the provisions of the Member State in which it is established, to provide that service there as well — in the present case, restriction of the Gibraltar gambling licence to ‘offshore bookmaking’?

               2.

               Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on the operation of sports betting and lotteries (with more than a low potential risk of addiction), justified primarily on the grounds of combating the risk of gambling addiction, whereas other games of chance, with considerable potential risk of addiction, may be provided in that Member State by private service providers, and the different legal rules for sports betting and lotteries, on the one hand, and other games of chance, on the other, are based on the differing legislative powers of the Bund and the Länder?
               If question (2) is answered in the affirmative:

               3.

               Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding national rules which make entitlement to the grant of a licence to operate and arrange games of chance subject to the discretion of the competent licensing authority, even where the conditions for the grant of a licence as laid down in the legislation have been fulfilled?

               4.

               Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding national rules prohibiting the operation and brokering of public games of chance on the internet, in particular where, at the same time, although only for a transitional period of one year, their online operation and brokering is permitted, subject to legislation protecting minors and players, for the purposes of the principle of proportionality and to enable two commercial gambling brokers who have previously operated exclusively online to switch over to those distribution channels permitted by the Staatsvertrag?


title: Case C-438/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Community customs code — Article 220(2)(b) — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Legitimate expectations — Impossibility of verifying the accuracy of a certificate of origin — Notion of ‘certificate based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter’ — Burden of proof — Scheme of generalised tariff preferences)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/19

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-438/11) (1)

   (Community customs code - Article 220(2)(b) - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Legitimate expectations - Impossibility of verifying the accuracy of a certificate of origin - Notion of ‘certificate based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter’ - Burden of proof - Scheme of generalised tariff preferences)
   2013/C 9/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17) — Export of goods from a non-member country to the European Union — Subsequent verification of the proof of origin — Impossibility of retroactively establishing whether the content of a certificate of origin issued by the competent authorities of that non-member country is correct — Protection of the importer’s legitimate expectations

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that if, owing to the fact that the exporter has ceased production, the competent authorities of the non-member country are unable, through a subsequent verification, to determine whether the certificate of origin Form A that they issued is based on a correct account of the facts by the exporter, the burden of proving that the certificate was based on a correct account of the facts by the exporter rests with the person liable for payment.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-409/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Metropolitan Court lodged on 1 August 2011 — Gábor Csonka and Others v Hungarian State

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Metropolitan Court lodged on 1 August 2011 — Gábor Csonka and Others v Hungarian State
   (Case C-409/11)
   2011/C 347/11
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh

      Defendant: Hungarian State

      Questions referred

               1.

               At the time when the applicants caused the damage had the Hungarian State implemented Directive 72/166/EC (1) having particular regard to the obligations set out in Article 3 of that directive? Must the directive thus be declared to have direct effect as regards the applicants?

               2.

               According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that the State did not implement Directive 72/1966/EEC require that State to comply with the provisions of the directive by relying directly on the Community legislation vis-à-vis that negligent State in order to obtain the guarantees which that State should have offered him?

               3.

               According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that Directive 72/166/EEC has not been implemented claim compensation for damage from the State responsible for that failure to implement?

               4.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the Hungarian State have a responsibility to pay compensation for damage both to the applicants and to those injured in road traffic accidents caused by the applicants?
               The relevant wording of the Directive is as follows: ‘Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the Community [as regards the damage caused]’.

               5.

               Can the State be held responsible if a drafting error in the legislation caused the damage?

               6.

               Is Government Decree No 190/2004 of 8 June on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (190/2004. (VI.8) Korm. rendelet a gépjármű üzembentartójának kötelező felelősségbiztosításról), in force until 1 January 2010, compatible with the content of Council Directive 72/166/EEC, or has Hungary failed to transpose into Hungarian law the obligations laid down in that Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition: Series I Chapter 1972(II) p. 360).


title: Case T-418/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in wine — Rules for the use of the names of vine varieties and their synonyms — Temporal limits as regards use — Legal persons — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole and Others v Commission
   (Case T-418/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in wine - Rules for the use of the names of vine varieties and their synonyms - Temporal limits as regards use - Legal persons - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 96/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole (Udine, Italy); Friulvini Soc. coop. rl (Zoppola, Italy); Cantina Produttori di Ramuscello e San Vito Soc. coop. rl (Sesto Al Reghena, Italy); Cantina Produttori Cormòns — Vini del Collio e dell'Isonzo Soc. coop. rl (Cormòns, Italy); and Luigi Soini (Cormòns) (represented by: F. Capelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Righini, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: P. Gottfried, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the provision limiting to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘Tocai friulano ’referred to, in the form of an explanatory note, in item 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Hungary is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-297/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Disclosure by the Commission to third parties of information allegedly harmful to the applicant’s reputation — Non-pecuniary loss — Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-297/12) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Disclosure by the Commission to third parties of information allegedly harmful to the applicant’s reputation - Non-pecuniary loss - Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals))
   2014/C 421/42
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and S. Delaude, agents, assisted by E. Petritsi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered due to the disclosure by the Commission in its letter of 3 July 2007 to third parties of certain information concerning an administrative investigation by the Commission in respect of the applicant and the applicant’s personnel recruitment policy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-278/04: Action brought on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/24

         Action brought on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-278/04)
   (2004/C 228/49)
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Arnaud Bordes of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 and Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001, both amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (1) into national law within the prescribed period, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC expired on 1 January 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 316, pp. 1 and 36


title: Case T-275/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/63

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission
   (Case T-275/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/76)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Drahtwerk St. Ingbert GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany); DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH (Cologne, Germany); Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH (Völklingen, Germany); Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Stahlguss Saar GmbH (Sankt Ingbert); and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH (Dillingen) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Drahtwerk St. lngbert GmbH, DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH, Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, Stahlguss Saar GmbH and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-454/93, T-456/93 and T-457/93

text:
23 . 11 . 96       I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 354/35
parties to the contract for the sale of the property constitute      cabinet to which he was attached. The applicant states in
a commercially viable compromise of the type arrived at by           that regard that he had himself requested the administration
reasonable parties to transactions effected in the ordinary          for assurances to that effect, having regard to the amount of
course of business . The contested decision therefore has no         the sum in question, and that over one year had elapsed
legal basis in Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and should          before the department concerned had discovered the
consequently be annulled for that reason alone .                     existence of a possible error.
Furthermore, the decision infringes Article 190 of the EC
Treaty, in that it does not contain a sufficiently clear and         The applicant maintains, first, that Article 45 of the
unambiguous statement of reasons .                                   Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and Article 85
                                                                     of the Staff Regulations have been infringed, in that the
                                                                     criteria for the recovery of undue payments are not fulfilled
                                                                     in the present case . The Commission did not pay the
                                                                     allowance by mistake but with full knowledge of the facts,
                                                                     applying a practice by which it had established a system for
Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Claus Jensen against             the payment of advances subject to recovery thereof on
      the Commission of the European Communities                     certain conditions. Nor, second, was there any question of
                      ( Case T-156/96 )                              his having acted in bad faith since, as far as the
                        ( 96/C 354/67 )                              administration was concerned, the payment was not undue
                                                                     at the time when it was made and the applicant cannot
               (Language of the case: French)                        therefore be regarded as having been aware of any
                                                                     irregularity whatsoever. He considers in that regard that it
                                                                     appears necessary to interpret Article 85 of the Staff
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Regulations as not excluding cases of bad faith other than
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     those involving awareness of the irregularity of the payment.
Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1996
                                                                     In any event, according to the applicant, the Commission
by Claus Jensen, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
                                                                     has not proved that, in the circumstances of the case, he was
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                     aware , when the installation allowance was paid to him,
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                                                                     that that payment was irregular or that it had to fulfil certain
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .                                     conditions in order to become definitive .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         In addition, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 24
                                                                     of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, since
— order measures of inquiry as proposed in the grounds of            the advance payment system is inconsistent with that
    the application,                                                 provision. In his view, Article 24 requires the
— annul the defendant's decision, notified to him by a letter
                                                                     administration, upon the entry into service of an official or
    dated 13 November 1995 from the Head of the Unit                 agent, to adopt a definitive decision on entitlement to the
                                                                     allowance on the basis of the expected period of service . It
    dealing with pensions and relations with former staff
                                                                     therefore precludes the adoption by the administration of an
    which he received on 23 November 1995 , ordering the
                                                                     initial, purely provisional decision followed, subsequently,
    recovery from him of the installation allowance paid to
                                                                     by a definitive decision based on the period of service
    him, by means of the deduction of part of it from his
                                                                     actually completed .
    severance grant and the issue of a debit note in respect of
    the balance ,
— order the defendant to pay him damages in a sum
    equivalent to the amount of the installation allowance
    received by him, namely Bfr 565 976 ,                            Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-454/93 ,
                                                                                T-456/93 and T-457/93(M
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/68
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant, an official of the Danish civil service on
secondment to the Commission, contests the decision of the           By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
appointing authority ordering, in consequence of the                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
termination of his contract of employment and by reason of           Communities ordered the removal from the register of
his appointment as a national expert, the repayment of the           Joined Cases T-454/93 , T-456/93 and T-457/93 : Elders
sums paid by way of installation allowance upon him taking           Trading Limited and Paterson Elders ( Produce ) Limited,
up his duties in the cabinet of the Danish Member of the             Barretts & Baird (Wholesale ) Limited, FMC pic, FMC
Commission .                                                         ( Meat ) Limited, D. T. Duggins Limited, Marshall
                                                                     ( Lamberhurst ) Limited, Montelupo Ltd and North Devon
He points out, first of all, that he was given unambiguous           Meat Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities .
assurances on a number of occasions by the competent
department within the defendant institution that the                 (!) OJ No C 290, 6 . 11 . 1992 .
payments in question were to be regarded as having been
definitively acquired by him, even if he were to leave the


title: Case C-510/06 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium gluconate market — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Community competition policy — Equal treatment — Turnover to be taken into account — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-510/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate market - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Community competition policy - Equal treatment - Turnover to be taken into account - Attenuating circumstances)
   2009/C 113/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: M. Garcia, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-329/01 Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission, by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of Commission Decision C(2001)2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-172/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Joint control by two parent companies — Decisive influence — Joint and several liability — Limitation period — Legitimate interest)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/27

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA
   (Case C-172/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Joint control by two parent companies - Decisive influence - Joint and several liability - Limitation period - Legitimate interest)
   2013/C 344/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Biolan, acting as Agents), DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08 EI du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission, in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel in the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Joint venture — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case T-499/07: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2010 — Bulgaria v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/39

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2010 — Bulgaria v Commission
   (Case T-499/07) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 246/67
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-63/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision 2011/866/EU — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union — Staff Regulations — Article 65 of the Staff Regulations — Method of adjustment — Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Exception clause — Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation — Adjustment of correction coefficients — Article 64 of the Staff Regulations — Council decision — Refusal to adopt the Commission’s proposal)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-63/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision 2011/866/EU - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Article 65 of the Staff Regulations - Method of adjustment - Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Exception clause - Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation - Adjustment of correction coefficients - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - Council decision - Refusal to adopt the Commission’s proposal)
   2014/C 39/05
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents, Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto OJ 2011 L 341, p. 54) — Non-compliance with method for annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union — Refusal to adjust correction coefficients relating to places of employment — Misuse of power — Infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Infringement of the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Insufficient statement of reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.