title: Case C-247/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Gaz de France — Berliner Investissement SA v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Free movement of capital — Profits distributed to a parent company exempt from withholding tax in the Member State of the subsidiary — Concept of company of a Member State — Société par actions simplifiée under French law)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Gaz de France — Berliner Investissement SA v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-247/08) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Profits distributed to a parent company exempt from withholding tax in the Member State of the subsidiary - Concept of ‘company of a Member State’ - ‘Société par actions simplifiée’ under French law)
   2009/C 282/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gaz de France — Berliner Investissement SA

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC, 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC, and Article 2(a) and paragraph (f) of the Annex to Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Concept of ‘company of a Member State’ — Refusal, in the Member State of the subsidiary, to grant an exemption from withholding tax to a parent company taking the legal form of a ‘société par actions simplifiée’ in French law, since that form of company does not, at the material time, appear on the list in the annex to the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, read in conjunction with point (f) of the annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a company under French law in the form of a ‘société par actions simplifiée’ cannot be considered to be a ‘company of a Member State’ within the meaning of that directive before that directive was amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003;

               2.

               Examination of the question has not revealed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2(a) of Directive 90/435 read in conjunction with point (f) of the annex thereto and Article 5(1) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T-347/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Rejection of the request for the defence of immunity for a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-347/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Rejection of the request for the defence of immunity for a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 347/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 not to defend the applicant’s immunity and privileges.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-233/06: Action brought on 26 August 2006 — Casa Editorial El Tiempo v OHIM –Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/23

         Action brought on 26 August 2006 — Casa Editorial El Tiempo v OHIM –Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO)
   (Case T-233/06)
   (2006/C 261/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Casa Editorial El Tiempo SA (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Fernández Lerroux, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Instituto Nacional de Meteorología
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2006 in Case R-760/2005-4;

               —

               order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Casa Editorial El Tiempo SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark EL TIEMPO (application No 1685056) for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 38 and 41

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Instituto Nacional de Meteorología

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks EL TIEMPO for publications (unregistered, but well-known), TELETIEMPO for goods in Class 16 (No 1902923) and services in Class 38 (No 2217494, and TELETIEMPO INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE METEOROLOGÍA for services in Classes 35 (No 2217493) and 41 (No 2217492)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and refusal of the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the opposition in respect of the following services: ‘advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ (Class 35) and ‘entertainment; sporting and cultural activities’ (Class 41)

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark


title: Case T-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV, De Luca v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/32

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV, De Luca v Commission
   (Case T-200/13 P)
   2013/C 171/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV De Luca v Commission;

               —

               Giving judgment itself,

                           —

                           Annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2005 to appoint the appellant as an administrator, in so far as it sets her classification at grade A*9 step 2;

                           —

                           Order the Commission to pay the costs in respect of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal alleging the following errors of law:

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the judgment of 14 December 2011 in Case T-563/10 P De Luca v Commission as restricting the examination of the legality of the contested decision at first instance solely to the effects of the application by analogy of the rules on recruitment without taking into account the pre-eminence of the applicable provisions concerning normal career progression;

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal held that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union could lawfully apply by analogy, but stated that that did not constitute an advantage for the appellant in terms of career and that the limited advantage in terms of remuneration would ultimately disappear;

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal did not carry out an examination of the legality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of its application by analogy to the appellant taking into account the principle of equal treatment and of the right to reasonable career prospects;

                           —

                           it is for the Civil Service Tribunal to ascertain, and not for the appellant to establish, the manifestly inappropriate nature of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal rejected at the outset, without an in-depth examination, the appellant’s argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment resulting from the fact that the eligibility of officials for promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is maintained notwithstanding the amendments to the Staff Regulations which have taken place, although this does not, on account of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, apply to the appellant.


title: Case C-495/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2014  — Antonio Tita and Others v Ministero della Giustizia and Others

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Antonio Tita and Others v Ministero della Giustizia and Others
   (Case C-495/14)
   (2015/C 026/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin, Piero Constantini

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

      Question referred

   Do the principles fixed by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 (1) and by Council Directives 89/665/EEC (2) and 92/13/EEC (3) , with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, preclude a provision of national law, such as that on the lump sum payable in respect of court fees laid down in Articles 9, 13(6)bis and (6)bis1 and 14(3)ter of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002 (as progressively amended by subsequent legislative interventions), and in Article 1(27) of Law No 228 of 24 December 2012, which laid down high amounts for the lump sum payable for access to administrative proceedings relating to public procurement procedures.

      (1)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

      (2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

      (3)  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).


title: Case T-4/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/22

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-4/11)
   2011/C 72/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               declare Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               annul Article 16(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision taken by the Council to include the applicant on the list in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its action.

               1.

               First plea, alleging that there is no legal basis for Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1) and/or Article 16(2)(a) and (b) thereof

                           —

                           Under the first part of that plea, the applicant submits that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP does not make such provision;

                           —

                           Under the second part, the applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP was not adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU. That decision should therefore be disregarded as inapplicable to the present case.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of international law by Article 16(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 961/2010, inasmuch as those provisions do not constitute implementation of a decision by the Security Council and infringe the principle of non-interference enshrined in international law.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 215 TFEU, since the procedure for inclusion on the list of Annex VIII contradicts the procedure laid down in Article 215 TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to sound administration and the right to effective legal protection, in so far as the Council did not respect the applicant's right to be heard, failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its decisions and failed to give the applicant access to the documents in the case.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           The applicant submits first that the contested decisions are inappropriate, since the freezing of the funds and other funds managed by the applicant amounts to freezing funds and resources which are not at its free disposal and which belong to its clients.

                           —

                           The applicant submits next that the sanction imposed on it is disproportionate in the light of the facts alleged against it and that the sanction is based on old and unsubstantiated facts.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to respect for property, since the restriction of its right to property is disproportionate in so far as its rights of defence were not respected during the procedure.

               7.

               Seventh plea, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as the applicant was punished even though it has not been established that the applicant participated knowingly and deliberately in activities having as their object or effect the circumvention of the restrictive measures.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1.


title: Case C-534/08: Order of the President of the Court of 18 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH
   (Case C-534/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/63

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-834/14: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Forbruger-Kontakt v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/45

         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Forbruger-Kontakt v Commission
   (Case T-834/14) (1)

   (2016/C 191/60)
   Language of the case: Danish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Action brought on 21 May 1997 by Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão against the Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (Case T-159/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97          I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/31
Action brought on 21 May 1997 by Luis Manuel Chaves                    the President of the Office has failed to observe the basic
Fonseca Ferrao against the Office for the Harmonization                formalities which should precede the adoption of such a
                      of the Internal Market                           measure .
                          ( Case T-159/97 )
                                                                       Lastly, the expediency of the contested decision, to which
                            ( 97/C 212/61
                                                                       the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 119 (2 ) ( a )
                (Language of the case: French)                         of the Regulation is subject, has not been justified as
                                                                       regards the hierarchical subordination of members of the
An action against the Office for the Harmonization of the              Boards of Appeal to the chairmen thereof and of those
Internal Market was brought before the Court of First                  chairmen to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs, with the
Instance of the European Communities on 21 May 1997                    result that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to
by Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrao, residing at                      comply with essential procedural requirements, since it is
Alicante ( Spain ), represented by Roland Assa , of the                not supported by a statement of reasons .
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre                 (') C)J No L 11 , 14 . 1 . 1994, p . 1 .
Brasseur.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— review, pursuant to Article 179 of the Treaty and
     Article 91 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations, the legality of        Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Netherlands
     Decision ADM-97-3 of 21 February 1997 of the                      Antilles against the Commission of the European
     President of the Office for the Harmonization of the                  Communities and the Council of the European Union
     Internal Market, in particular Article 2 thereof,                                            ( Case T-163/97 )
— declare the said decision, in particular Article 2                                                ( 97/C 212/62 )
     thereof, null and void, inasmuch as it establishes a
     twofold structure of hierarchical subordination                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     between the members and chairmen of the Boards of
     Appeal and between those chairmen and the Office's                An action against the Commission of the European
     Vice-President for Legal Affairs,                                 Communities and the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
— order the Office for the Harmonization of the Internal               Communities on 26 May 1997 by the Netherlands
     Market ( trade marks and designs ) to pay the costs .             Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,
                                                                       of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                       Rue Goethe .
The applicant, a member of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                The applicant claims that the Court should:
(trade marks and designs ), contests the abovementioned
decision, maintaining that the hierarchical subordination              — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 764/97 of
of the members of the Boards of Appeal to the Vice                         23 April 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
President for Legal Affairs, for which Article 2 of the                     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
contested decision provides, is incompatible with the                       countries and territories ('),
independent status conferred on them by Article 131 of
Council Regulation ( EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993                 — order the Community to pay fair and reasonable
on the Community trade mark ('the Regulation') ( ] ). That                  compensation, to be determined by the Court, with
structure of subordination between the members and
                                                                            interest thereon from 22 May 1997 until payment is
chairmen of the Boards of Appeal , and between those                        made in full , and
chairmen and the Vice-President for Legal Affairs, affects
the internal institutional equilibrium resulting from the
                                                                       — order the         Commission,          the Council  and/or the
devision of powers between the different decision-making
authorities .                                                               Community, as appropriate, to pay the costs of the
                                                                            case .
Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by the fact
that it infringes the Regulation, in particular Articles 112           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and 131 thereof, the rules adopted for its implementation
and the general principles of law applying in the matter.              Infringement of the Treaty or of specific regulations
                                                                       implementing it and/or breach of general principles of
Furthermore, Article 119 of the Regulation does not                    Community law, in particular:
confer on the President of the Office the power to alter
the status of the members of the Boards of Appeal in a                  1 . misuse of powers: the Commission is using its powers
way which is inconsistent with their independence and                       under Article 109 of the OCT Decision to circumvent
their collegiate status . By adopting the contested decision                implementation of the review procedure in the OCT
without consulting the members of the Board, and by                         Decision ( Article 240 of the OCT Decision, in
allowing only three days for the submission of comments,                    conjunction with Article 136 of the EC Treaty );


title: Case F-45/12: Action brought on 10th April 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/21

         Action brought on 10th April 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-45/12)
   2012/C 200/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Visan, Lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission's decision not to renew the Staff contract of the Applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of 27-28.07.2011 of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova not to renew the employment contract of the applicant and, annul European Commission DG.HR.D.2's Decision dated 16.01.2011 to applicant's Complaint no. Rl687/11 filed under article 90(2).

               —

               Order the European Commission to reintegrate the Applicant in another EU Delegation so that the Applicant maintains the rights obtained during the performance of the employment contract from 2008 to 2011 in the EU Delegation to Moldova [probation period passed; salary step appraisal points accumulated], and ensure that the new post will be compatible with the EPSO/CAST contest profile that the Applicant has passed in 2007.

               —

               Order the Defendant to make a Public acknowledgement of the error made by the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova at the moment they offered the ‘Charge de Mission Adjoint’ post to the Applicant — an error that has led to the impossibility of ensuring article 4-paragraph 2/renewal clause since day-1 of contract, to the under-positioning of the Applicant and the assignment of tasks inferior to the Job of the Applicant's Description from 2008 until 2011;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay of damages for the moral prejudice caused from 2008 until 2011 by the irregularities mentioned above. Damages are to be calculated on a monthly basis as the salary difference between the Applicant and the Local Agent for the entire 2008-2011 period -the reasoning being that the Delegation (a) had willingly assigned to the Applicant identical tasks as given to the Local Agent despite of very different Job Descriptions, (b) had done its utmost to keep the Applicant from performing tasks/undertaking the correct position according to the Job Description, (c) constantly denied that Applicant's post involved deputing to the Head of the FCA.

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the damages for the period ‘10.11.2011 — until the reintegration into another EU Delegation — EU Institution’ for the material and non-material losses suffered by the Applicant following the Decision of 27-28.07.2011 of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova not to renew the Applicant's agent contract category 3a). Damages are to be calculated on the basis of the monthly salary of the Applicant for the entire period 10.11.2011- until reintegration into work.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay for all expenses generated with this trial.


title: Case T-70/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/34

         Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-70/09)
   2009/C 90/52
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in part Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 — no 97.07.13.003 — granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997, in so far as the former decision relates to the 2% flat-rate adjustment to the budget in the amount of EUR 1 139 346,24 which was applied and the expenditure amounting in total to NLG 1 160 456 which it was declared could not be subsidised; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its application the Netherlands first alleges infringement of the principle of legal certainty in that obligations are imposed on a Member State on the basis of case-law of the Court of Justice which post-dates the imposition of those obligations and which at that moment were not clear, precise and foreseeable for the Member State concerned.
   In the alternative, the Netherlands alleges infringement of the principle that reasons must be given by virtue of the fact that no more detailed grounds were provided as to the nature of the cross-border interest of the project in question, that project having in the interim been approved and the value of which fell below the thresholds laid down in the public procurement directives.
   In conclusion, the Netherlands alleges a breach of Article 211 EC by reason of the fact that the Commission applied a flat-rate reduction of 2% on the ground of the alleged failure to comply with the national conditions governing the project, even though the Commission has power only in respect of compliance with the Community conditions.


title: Case T-328/13: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment — Cyprus stability support programme — Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/22

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-328/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Cyprus stability support programme - Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 448/29)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, acting as Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-327/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2014 by Ms Galina Meister against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2013 in Case T-390/13 Galina Meister v European Commission

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/14

      Appeal brought on 2 July 2014 by Ms Galina Meister against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2013 in Case T-390/13 Galina Meister v European Commission

      (Case C-327/14 P)
      (2015/C 107/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Galina Meister (represented by: W. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      The Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 12 February 2015 and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.


title: Case C-415/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH (Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Worker showing that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement — Right of that worker to have access to information indicating whether the employer has recruited another applicant)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH
   (Case C-415/10) (1)

   (Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Worker showing that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement - Right of that worker to have access to information indicating whether the employer has recruited another applicant)
   2012/C 165/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Galina Meister

      Defendant: Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23), Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Equal treatment in the area of employment and work — Burden of proof — Right of a person whose application for a job in a private company was unsuccessful to receive full information concerning the selection procedure in order to be able to prove discrimination

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as not entitling a worker who claims plausibly that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement and whose application was rejected to have access to information indicating whether the employer engaged another applicant at the end of the recruitment process.
   Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that a defendant’s refusal to grant any access to information may be one of the factors to take into account in the context of establishing facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before it.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-581/14: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 —Vierling v OHIM — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/33

         Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 —Vierling v OHIM — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE)
   (Case T-581/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 205/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yvonne Vierling (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IP Leanware (Issoire, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2014 (Case R 1486/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Yvonne Vierling and IP Leanware.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

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

               2)

               Ms Yvonne Vierling shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-80/09 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2009 by Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill and Andreas Herden against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Volker Merkel and Others v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/19

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2009 by Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill and Andreas Herden against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Volker Merkel and Others v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-80/09 P)
   2009/C 90/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill and Andreas Herden (represented by: G.P. Friderichs, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07, which was served upon the appellants by fax on 18 December 2008;

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007 (Case R0299/2007-4);

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of the proceedings is the question whether the term ‘Patentconsult’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 can benefit from protection as a trade mark. The Court of First Instance considered that the term ‘Patentconsult’ was an indication serving to designate the service at issue in a direct and concrete manner.
   The appeal is based on the wrong interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
   By its first plea, the appellants claim that the Court committed an error of law in classifying the trade mark at issue as a neologism that was not noticeably different from the sum of its descriptive elements. According to the appellant, the Court found that the mark at issue was not noticeably different on the ground that the mark ‘Patentconsult’ followed the structure commonly used for similar designations such as ‘patent consulting’ or ‘patent consultancy’. However, that classification was wrong, precisely because ‘Patentconsult’ did not follow the common — namely grammatically correct — structure, but diverged from it and accordingly represented a striking neologism that was noticeably different from the mere sum of the elements ‘patent’ and ‘consult’.
   By its second plea, the appellant claims that the Court wrongly assessed the exclusively descriptive character of the mark ‘Patentconsult’. The Court considered that, in respect of that descriptive character, it was immaterial whether other terms could be used for the protected services. However, the appellants take the view that it is precisely in order to be able to claim that there is a ‘need to leave free’ (‘Freihaltebedürfnis’), that a term other than ‘Patentconsult’ must be used. It is precisely the grammatically incorrect term ‘Patentconsult’ which is not suitable.
   Finally, by its third plea, the appellant claims that the Court was wrong to consider that the respondent’s earlier decision concerning the mark ‘Netmeeting’ and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-383/99 P concerning the mark ‘Baby-dry’ were not relevant. According to the judgment in Case C-383/99 P, a perceptible difference to the terms used in the common parlance of the relevant class of consumers is apt to confer distinctive character. That case-law has to be followed, in order to guarantee consistency and the reliability of decisions of the Community courts.


title: Case C-394/09: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 June 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 June 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-394/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/68
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-292/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Elliniko Dimosio v Stefanos Stroumpoulis and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Scope — Outstanding wage claims of seamen working on board a vessel flying the flag of a non-member country — Employer whose registered office is located in the non-member country — Employment contract subject to the law of the non-member country — Employer declared insolvent in a Member State in which its actual head office is located — Article 1(2) — Annex, Section II, A — National legislation providing a guarantee in respect of the outstanding wage claims of seaman only if they are abandoned abroad — Level of protection not equivalent to that provided by Directive 80/987)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Elliniko Dimosio v Stefanos Stroumpoulis and Others
   (Case C-292/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Scope - Outstanding wage claims of seamen working on board a vessel flying the flag of a non-member country - Employer whose registered office is located in the non-member country - Employment contract subject to the law of the non-member country - Employer declared insolvent in a Member State in which its actual head office is located - Article 1(2) - Annex, Section II, A - National legislation providing a guarantee in respect of the outstanding wage claims of seaman only if they are abandoned abroad - Level of protection not equivalent to that provided by Directive 80/987))
   (2016/C 145/06)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elliniko Dimosio

      Defendants: Stefanos Stroumpoulis, Nikolaos Koumpanos, Panagiotis Renieris, Charalampos Renieris, Ioannis Zacharias, Dimitrios Lazarou, Apostolos Chatzisotiriou

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the possible application of Article 1(2) of the directive, seamen living in a Member State who were engaged in that State by a company with its registered office in a non-member country but its actual head office in that Member State to work as employees on board a cruise ship owned by the company and flying the flag of the non-member country under an employment contract designating the law of the non-member country as the law applicable must, after the company has been declared insolvent by a court of the Member State concerned in accordance with the law of that State, be eligible for the protection conferred by the directive as regards their outstanding wage claims against the company.

               2.

               Article 1(2) of Directive 80/987 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards employees in a situation such as that of the defendants in the main proceedings, protection such as that provided in Article 29 of Law 1220/1981 supplementing and amending the legislation relating to the Piraeus port authority in the event that seamen are abandoned abroad does not constitute ‘protection equivalent to that resulting from [the] Directive’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-672/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 17 December 2013 — OTP Bank Nyrt. v Magyar Állam and Magyar Államkincstár

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 17 December 2013 — OTP Bank Nyrt. v Magyar Állam and Magyar Államkincstár
   (Case C-672/13)
   2014/C 85/25
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OTP Bank Nyrt.

      Defendants: Magyar Állam and Magyar Államkincstár

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a State guarantee granted under Government Decree 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 and undertaken before the accession of Hungary to the European Union constitute State aid and, if so, is it compatible with the internal market?

               2.

               If the State guarantee granted by that Decree is incompatible with the internal market, what remedies are available under Community law for any damage to the interests of the persons concerned?


title: Case T-442/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — CISAC v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — CISAC v Commission
   (Case T-442/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-481/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (maxi BRICOCENTRO)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/68

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (maxi BRICOCENTRO)
   (Case T-481/09)
   2010/C 24/120
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 – R 1046/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘maxi BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 939 005) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 March 2003 in Case C-306/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 213/5
2.    The Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de                A tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets does not constitute a
      Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral          tax having an economic effect equivalent to capital duty and,
      de Bizkaia, the Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación          accordingly, is not incompatible with Council Directive 69/335/EEC
      Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas Generales de Gipuzkoa and the               concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
      Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco are                 Edition 1969, as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
      ordered to pay the costs.                                              1985.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                   (1 ) OJ 2002 C 261.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
                                                                             Stuttgart by order of that Court of 7 April 2003 in
                           (First Chamber)                                   the case concerning notarial costs with the following
                                                                             participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh
                                                                             & Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht
                          of 27 March 2003                                   Stuttgart and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht
                                                                                Stuttgart
in Case C-306/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento,                                                   (Case C-165/03)
Sezione No 6): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and Others v
     Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/09)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/
      335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital)
                           (2003/C 213/08)                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                             (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 7 April 2003, received at the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Court Registry on 10 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the case concerning notarial costs with the following
                                                                             participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh &
                                                                             Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht Stuttgart
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht Stuttgart on the
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             following questions:
                                                                             1)    In a legal system such as that of the Württemberg region
                                                                                of Baden-Württemberg, where there are both notaries
In Case C-306/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                      who are self-employed and notaries who are employed as
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento                           civil servants and the notary himself is always the person
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                        to whom the fees are due, but where, if the services
before that court between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and                         concerned are carried out by a notary employed as a civil
Others and Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                        servant, he must remit a — fixed — portion of the fees
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC                            to the State, which is his employer and which uses those
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English                   proceeds to fund its activities, are the fees of the notary
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 25), as amended by Directive 85/                     employed as a civil servant for the notarisation of a legal
303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court                         transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, to
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                        be regarded as tax for the purposes of that directive, in
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                      contrast to the situation that gave rise to the order in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                        Case C-264/00 Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH (not yet
27 March 2003, in which it has ruled:                                              published in the European Court reports)?


title: Case T-412/12: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2013 — bpost v Commission

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/11

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2013 — bpost v Commission
   (Case T-412/12) (1)

   2013/C 298/18
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case T-295/15: Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith — Earlier EU word mark SMITH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/21

         Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)
   (Case T-295/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith - Earlier EU word mark SMITH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 200/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yongyu Zhang (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Steinert, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2015 (Case R 1559/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG et M. Yongyu Zhang.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Yongyu Zhang to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-612/15: Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/31

         Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)
   (Case T-612/15)
   (2016/C 007/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark ‘Representation of three vertical stripes’ — Application for registration No 12 880 481

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2015 in Case R 2845/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   principally:

               —

               alter the contested decision on the basis of the arguments, contained in the present application in conjunction with the evidence and documents adduced in the first two stages of the proceedings and, without referring the case back, grant the application for registration No 12 880 481, on the ground that the contested decision must be regarded as flawed for breach, first, of the rules laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, or, second, of the rules laid down in Article 7(3) of that regulation.

         In the alternative:

               —

               annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               determine the amount of the costs of the proceedings to be borne by OHIM.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 1996 in Case T-368/94: Pierre Blanchard v. Commission of the European Communities (Staff Regulations - Staff Committee - Elections - Right of trade unions or staff associations to submit several lists)

text:
No C 46/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      17. 2 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 14 December 1995                                                      ( Fourth Chamber)
in Case T-285/94, Fred Pfloeschner v. Commission of the                                       of 9 January 1996
                  European Communities ( ')                           in Case T-368/94 : Pierre Blanchard v. Commission of the
(Officials — Pensions — Weighting for Switzerland —                                       European Communities ( a )
Former official of Swiss nationality — Objection alleging
                                                                      (StaffRegulations — Staff Committee — Elections — Right
            illegality of Regulation No 2175/85)                      of trade unions or staff associations to submit several
                          ( 96/C 46/26 )                                                               lists )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/27)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-285/94 : Fred Pfloeschner, a former official of the
                                                                      In Case T-368/94 : Pierre Blanchard, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Geneva,       Switzerland,       represented     by     Georges
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn, 21
Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, against Commission of the European             Rue de Nassau, supported by Union Syndicale-Bruxelles
Communities ( Agents: Joseph Griesmar, Denis Waelbroeck               ( European Public Service Union ), whose headquarters are in
and, in the hearing, Ana Maria Alves Vieira ), supported by           Brussels, represented by Luc Misson and, at the hearing, by
the Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Cretien             Beatrice Rixhon, both of the Liege Bar, with an address for
and Diego Canga ) — application for annulment of the                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 2 1
Commission decision contained in the applicant's                      Rue de Nassau, against the Commission of the European
retirement pension statement for December 1993 , in so far            Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for
                                                                      annulment of the decisions of the electoral office contained
as it applies a weighting of 100, and for an order that the
Commission draw from the judgment annulling that                      in the notes of 3 and 8 November 1994 from its president,
                                                                      addressed to the applicant in his capacity as political
statement all the appropriate conclusions in law regarding
                                                                      secretary fo the European Public Service Union, and in the
both the retirement pension and the survivor's pension —
the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of           president's oral decision of 8 November 1994 refusing
B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, D. P. M.                     acceptance for the elections to the local section of the Staff
Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio               Committee of a list in which 27 pairs of candidates from the
                                                                      Research/European Public Service Union list had been
Gonzalez, gave a judgment on 14 December 1995 , the
                                                                      re-submitted under a name in which the designation
operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                      'European Public Service Union' did not appear — the Court
                                                                      of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of D. P. M.
                                                                      Barrington, President, K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; J.
 1 . the applicant's pension statement for December 1 993 is          Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
     annulled in so far as it applies a weighting of 1 00;            judgment on 9 January 1996, in which it:
2 . the Commission is ordered to pay the applicant default             1 . annuls the two decisions of the electoral office of
     interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the arrears of                  8 November 1994, without prejudice to the result of the
     pension; that interest shall be calculated with effect from             elections to the Staff Committee held on 31 January, 1
     the various dates on which the amounts payable under                    and 2 February 1 995, and rejects the remainder of the
     the pension scheme should have been paid until the date                 action for annulment;
     of actual payment;
                                                                      2 . rejects the claim for compensation;
 3 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs;
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                             applicant, including those relating to the proceedings for
 4 . the Council is ordered to bear its own costs .                          interim relief, as well as its own costs; orders the
                                                                             intervener to pay its own costs.
 (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                       ( 1 ) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Case T-461/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Spain v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery and the cancellation of any outstanding payments — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to show a prima facie case and urgency)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-461/13 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery and the cancellation of any outstanding payments - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to show a prima facie case and urgency)
   2013/C 359/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2013) 3204 final of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-124/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Petsch v Commission (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Crèche and after-school centre staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations and of the CEOS that entered into force on 1 January 2014 — Regulation No 1023/2013 — Increase in working hours — Additional monthly amount — Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure — Hierarchy of norms — General implementing provisions of Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 2 of the annex to the CEOS — Articles 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Petsch v Commission
   (Case F-124/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Crèche and after-school centre staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations and of the CEOS that entered into force on 1 January 2014 - Regulation No 1023/2013 - Increase in working hours - Additional monthly amount - Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure - Hierarchy of norms - General implementing provisions of Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 2 of the annex to the CEOS - Articles 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
   (2015/C 262/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Petsch (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contract staff working at the OIB, in the light of the increase in working hours to 40 hours per week as a consequence of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Petsch to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 59.


title: Case C-162/14: Action brought on 4 April 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/10

         Action brought on 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-162/14)
   2014/C 202/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining in force grounds for exclusion of economic operators from participation in tendering procedures, as contained in Article 24(1).1 and 1a of the Law governing public contracts (Prawo zamówień publicznych), which go beyond the substantive legal criteria of the exhaustive list of exclusions contained in Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(2) of that directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The grounds for excluding an economic operator from a tendering procedure by reason of his professional characteristics as laid down in Article 24(1).1 and 1a of the Law governing public contracts, that is to say, because of (i) the fact that that operator occasioned damage, confirmed by a decision having the force of law, by reason of the non-performance or improper performance of a contract, and (ii) the fact that the economic operator was a party to a contract which the contracting authority cancelled, terminated or renounced by reason of circumstances for which that economic operator bears responsibility, go beyond the scope of the grounds for exclusion set out in Article 45(2), in particular Article 45(2)(d), of Directive 2004/18/EC.
   The interpretation of the latter ground was the subject-matter of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-465/11 Forposta and ABC Direct Contact. The Court held in that judgment that the term ‘grave professional misconduct’ in Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC has to be construed as covering all wrongful conduct which has an impact on the professional credibility of the operator concerned. The Polish grounds for exclusion, however, are not limited solely to conduct on the part of economic operators which points to wrongful intent or negligence of a certain gravity on their part, but require the contracting authority automatically to exclude the operator concerned without carrying out a prior assessment of the wrongful conduct alleged against him.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


C 102/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case C-399/95 (1)
1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations                                       (2000/C 102/29)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/21/EC of 8 April 1998 (1)                    By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
     amending Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate the           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
     free movement of doctors and the mutual recoginition of              from the register of Case C-399/95: Federal Republic of
     their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal            Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
     qualifications, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary
     to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that Directive                                                 (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.
2) order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-195/96 (1)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation                                     (2000/C 102/30)
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December            By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of            from the register of Case C-195/96: Federal Republic of
the Commission.                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
(1) OJ L 119 of 22.4.1998, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-333/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-255/92 P (1)                                           (2000/C 102/31)
                         (2000/C 102/27)                                  By order of 17 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of                 from the register of Case C-333/98 (reference for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               ruling from the Commissione dei v i Provvedimenti dell’Ufficio
from the register of Case C-255/92 P: BASF AG v Commission                Italiano Brevetti e Marchi): Merck & Co Inc. v Ufficio Italiano
of the European Communities.                                              Brevetti e Marchi.
(1) OJ C 187 of 24.7.1992.                                                (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-291/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-129/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/32)
                         (2000/C 102/28)
                                                                          By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 10 December 1999 the President of the Court of                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-291/99 (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-129/99: Federal Republic of                   ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste, Prima Sezione Civile):
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                         Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314, 30.10.1999.


title: Case C-333/03: Action brought on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 213/25
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     ties on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
the Court should:                                                          Communities, represented by Marie-José Jonczy, acting as
                                                                           Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions to comply with
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      vehicles (1), or, in any event by not communicating those            the Court should:
      provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions to comply with
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending
                                                                                Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
                                                                                employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired                     businesses or parts of businesses (1), or, in any event by
on 21 April 2002.                                                                not communicating those provisions to the Commission,
                                                                                the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
( 1) OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.                                             obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Action brought on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (Case C-333/03)
                                                                           The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired
                           (2003/C 213/47)                                 on 17 July 2001.
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               (1 ) OJ No L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.


title: Case T-136/05: Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/34

         Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-136/05)
   (2005/C 132/61)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils, established in Saint-Paul de Fenouillet (France), Comité interprofessionnel des vins doux naturels et vins de liqueur à appellations contrôlées (CIVDN), established in Perpignan (France), and Comité national des interprofessionnels des vins à appellation d'origine, established in Paris (France), represented by Hugues Calvet and Olivier Billard, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1.1 and 1.3 of the Commission's decision of 19 January 2005 concerning the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the CIVDN parafiscal levies implemented by France;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission concluded that the set-aside premium per hectare financed by an inter-trade contribution in the context of the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the promotional and operational activities of the controlled designations of origin ‘Rivesaltes’, ‘Grand Rousillon’, ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’ and ‘Banyuls’ financed by inter-trade contributions constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
   The applicants seek for that decision to be annulled, submitting first that its statement of reasons is inadequate, in breach of Article 253 EC, and does not enable the applicants to understand the Commission's reasons for considering that the criteria relating to State aid defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice were satisfied in this case. The applicants also submit that the contested decision resulted from a breach of Article 87 EC, since the Commission did not show either that the measures in question were financed by means made available to the national authorities or that the inter-trade contributions, intended to finance the promotional and operational activities of the controlled designations of origin, were attributable to the State.


title: Case T-677/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Axa Versicherung v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure pursuant to the competition rules — Request relating to a collection of documents — Refusal to grant access — Request relating to a single document — Table of contents — Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Overriding public interest — Claim for damages — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Axa Versicherung v Commission
   (Case T-677/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure pursuant to the competition rules - Request relating to a collection of documents - Refusal to grant access - Request relating to a single document - Table of contents - Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Claim for damages - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 279/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany) (represented by: B. Meyring and E. Venot, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass) in so far as it refuses to grant Axa Versicherung AG access to the ‘leniency documents’ included in the table of contents of that file;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Axa Versicherung and the European Commission to each bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case C-68/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-487/13, Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/16

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-487/13, Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. v Commission

   (Case C-68/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Forms of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

               —

               order the European Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to various measures adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

      First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU and of Protocol (No 26) TFEU on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

   In particular, the action emphasises that the General Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

               —

               it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

               —

               it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

               —

               its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

               —

               it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).


20150731034616922015/C 270/531342014TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150608424212Case T-134/14: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2015 — Germany v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4220120150608EN0053422421Order of the General Court of 8 June 2015 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-134/14) (
         1
      )2015/C 270/53Language of the case: GermanThe President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case F-32/14: Action brought on 1 April 2014 — ZZ v ESMA

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/45

         Action brought on 1 April 2014 — ZZ v ESMA
   (Case F-32/14)
   2014/C 184/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary agent contract as a consequence of the negative appraisal report, annulment of the above mentioned appraisal report and a claim of damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision ESMA/2013/ED/33 concerning the non-renewal of the employment contract as well as the appraisals for 2011 and 2012;

               —

               order the defendant to pay an amount of 10.000 EUR as damages for the endured non-material harm;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.