title: Case T-537/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Zafeiropoulos v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/19

         Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Zafeiropoulos v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
   (Case T-537/12)
   2013/C 46/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Panteleimon Zafeiropoulos (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: M. Kontogiorgos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be admissible;·

               —

               annul the decision of the evaluation committee of Cedefop not to select the applicant, on the basis of the tender which he submitted in relation to the fast-track restricted competition for the award of the contract ‘Provision of medical services to Cedefop staff’ (Contract Notice 2012/S115-189528), and accordingly also annul the decision to award the contract (2012/S208-341369/27.10.2012), whereby the contract at issue was awarded to a paediatrician;

               —

               annul the decision of 19/11/2012 to refuse the confirmatory application made to the defendant and order the defendant to make available to the Court and to the applicant the full text of all documents relating to the contested procedure, so that the Court may be in a position to review the lawfulness of the contested decision;

               —

               order Cedefop to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 in compensation for the harm which he has suffered as a consequence of the actions of Cedefop which are the subject of this action and,

               —

               order Cedefop to pay the legal costs, and also other expenses and costs which the applicant has incurred in relation to these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First, the applicant maintains that the contested actions of Cedefop lack adequate reasons and infringe the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective protection, since, on the basis of the content of the contested award decision and the written documents provided in response to the applicant’s request, it is impossible to come to any definitive conclusion as to how the evaluation was carried out and ultimately how the tenders were ranked and, consequently, the grounds of the final decision of the defendant Cedefop were not adequately stated, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2) of Directive 2004/18 ΕΚ, (1) and the applicant was not informed of the particular characteristics and relative advantages of the selected tender by comparison with his own tender; further the applicant has never been informed of the factors which were the basis of the evaluation committee’s final decision in relation to the contested procedure for the award of the contract for the provision of medical services to Cedefop staff, notwithstanding the submission of an application therefor and a confirmatory application therefor.

               2.

               Second, the applicant maintains that Cedefop erred as to the facts and infringed the principles of objectivity and impartiality since the assessments/evaluations of Cedefop’s Evaluation Committee which are contained in the applicant’s individual evaluation report are manifestly erroneous and the evaluations of the technical requirements of the tenders submitted lack objectivity.

               3.

               Third, the applicant maintains that there was also an infringement of a fundamental condition of the contract notice in relation to the technical capacity of the tenderers and, in particular, there was an infringement of the condition which refers to the ‘Technical capacity’ of the candidates, since the successful tenderer lacks one of the medical specialisations required by the contract notice and should have been excluded.

               4.

               Fourth, the applicant maintains there was an infringement of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to define the award criteria to permit objective comparative evaluation of the tenders, since Cedefop, using as an award criterion ‘quality of the interview’ infringed the above principle and failed to comply with the above obligation, since that criterion was formulated in such an imprecise manner that the candidates were unable to determine what was the best quality they should have in order to obtain the highest mark.

               5.

               Fifth, the applicant maintains that the contested contract for the supply of services is contrary to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, read together with the current national legislation, under which the defendant Cedefop, as a public body which employs more than 50 workers, failed to comply with its obligation to use exclusively the services of a doctor with such a specialisation in occupational medicine.

               6.

               Sixth, the applicant maintains that there is also an infringement of the principles of transparency since the defendant Cedefop, by failing to provide the information which was sought by the applicant, both in his application of 15 October 2012 and in his confirmatory application of 19 November 2012, infringed the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation No 1605/2002/ΕC and the provisions of Article 149(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002/ΕC, by reason of its failure to state reasons for its refusal decision as required by those provisions.
               Lastly, the applicant maintains that the application for damages is well founded, since the applicant has complied with Article 44(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and the application to the Court sets out the facts which establish the conditions for Cedefop to incur non-contractual liability, as defined in Article 340 TFEU.

      (1)  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


title: Case T-436/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/33

         Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
   (Case T-436/17)
   (2017/C 300/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) (Gothenburg) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1);

               —

               annul Commission decision C(2016)5644;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, and

               —

               order any other measure deemed appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of DCC Maastricht BV within the meaning of Articles 62 and 60(7) of the REACH regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of the REACH regulation regarding the socio-economic assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Articles 60(4) and 60(5) of the REACH regulation regarding the analysis of alternatives.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the application of general principles of EU law, including the duty to state reasons and the precautionary principle, in the context of the authorisation process under the REACH regulation.


title: Case T-263/99: Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrĳf Chr. Kerres B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 6/35
Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon                         Action brought on 29 October 1999 by Algemene service-
               against the European Parliament                          en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-261/99)
                                                                                (Case T-265/99)
                           (2000/C 6/63)                                                           (2000/C 6/64)
                  (Language of the Case: French)                                            (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon, resident in Hagen,                    European Communities on 29 October 1999 by Algemene
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise             service- en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort B.V., of
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by J.P.A. Greuters, of the
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de          Arnhem Bar.
Gestion Fiduciaire SGF, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
— annul the decision of the European Parliament rejecting                    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    his application for the post, at the grade of LA 3, of Deputy            Germany, or at least declare it partially void in so far as the
    Head of the French Translation Division;                                 applicant is classified in the ‘dealer-owned/dealer-operated’
                                                                             category with a clause relating to a system of price controls;
— annul the decision of the European Parliament to appoint              (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
    another candidate to that post;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                        This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
                                                                        failure to comply with the obligation to provide a statement
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of reasons, on account of an essentially incorrect determination
                                                                        of the facts.
In support of his action, the applicant submits that the
European Parliament:                                                    (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— failed to comply with the vacancy notice, Article 45 of the
    Staff Regulations and the principles of career progression
    and of equal treatment, by appointing a candidate who did
    not possess all the qualifications required by the vacancy
    notice;
                                                                        Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
                                                                        Chr. Kerres B.V. against the Commission of the European
— manifestly erred in its assessment in considering that the
                                                                                Communities
    two candidates for the vacant post were of equivalent
    merit; and
                                                                                (Case T-263/99)
— infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations by not provid-
    ing the applicant with the information to enable him to                                        (2000/C 6/65)
    examine the justification for the contested decision and in
    particular the reason why he was not appointed to the
    post which he had already occupied, to the very great                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
    satisfaction of his line management, on the occasions when
    the Head of Division was absent.                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
                                                                        Chr. Kerres B.V., of Kerkrade (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        W.C.G.J. Sterk, of the Heerlen Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/36                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
                                                                      failure to comply with the obligation to provide a statement
(a) declare void, and consequently annul, the Commission’s            of reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality,
    decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999 concern-        inasmuch as it has received no subsidy amounting to more
    ing State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service           than ECU 100 000, and the alleged inadequacy — according
    stations in the region bordering Germany;                         to the Commission — of the information supplied cannot
                                                                      constitute a ground for any assumption to the contrary.
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                            (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.


title: Case C-219/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2009 — Vitra Patente AG v High Tech Srl

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2009 — Vitra Patente AG v High Tech Srl
   (Case C-219/09)
   2009/C 205/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vitra Patente AG

      Defendant: High Tech Srl

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that — in implementing a national law of a Member State adjusting the domestic legal order to the abovementioned Directive — the discretion accorded to such a Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection in the case of designs which — albeit meeting the requirements for protection laid down in copyright law — fell to be regarded as having entered into the public domain before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force, in so far as they had never been registered as designs or in so far as the relevant registration had already expired by that date?

               (2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs — has already produced and marketed in that State products based on such designs which were in the public domain before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force?

               (3)

               If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs — has already produced and marketed products based on such designs in that State, where protection is precluded for a substantial period (a period of 10 years)?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.


title: Case T-284/14: Action brought on 5 May 2014  — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/20

         Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission
   (Case T-284/14)
   2014/C 245/27
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. (Nowiny, Poland) (represented by: K. Kowalczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law:

                           —

                           The adopted decision is incompatible with EU law, in particular with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 October 2003 and Commission Decision 2010/2/EU of 24 December 2009.

               2.

               Second plea in law:

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of equal treatment by reason of the establishment of a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor for all sectors, failing thereby to take into account the fact that the sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, including that of cement production, ought to be treated in a manner different to sectors which are not exposed to such a significant risk;
                           and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law:

                           —

                           Inapplicability, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, of Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, which form the basis on which the contested decision was adopted, in so far as it is possible to apply those provisions without taking account of Article 10a(12) to (18) of Directive 2003/87/EC, Article 16 of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU and Commission Decision 2010/2/EU, which confirm the need to proceed in a specific manner in those sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, and inapplicability of the adoption by the European Commission of a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor for all sectors.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud'hommes (Industrial Tribunal), Bobigny, by judgment of 2 July 1998 in the case of Bernard Bauduin and Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA (Case C-360/98)

text:
C 358/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de              The time-limit here passed on 23 November 1995 without
Prud'hommes (Industrial Tribunal), Bobigny, by judgment             the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
of 2 July 1998 in the case of Bernard Bauduin and                   necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA                      form of order sought by the Commission.
                        (Case C-360/98)
                                                                    (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
                         (98/C 358/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
Prud'hommes, Bobigny, of 2 July 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1998, for a                   Removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (1)
preliminary ruling in the case of Bernard Bauduin and
                                                                                (98/C 358/23)
Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA on the following
question:
                                                                    By order of 16 September 1998 the President of the Court
Is Article 18 of the Agreement of 5 July 1991 compatible            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
with the provisions of Community law, and Article 119 of            removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (reference for
the Treaty of Rome in particular?                                   a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
                                                                    Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                    for Defence ex parte: Terence Perkins.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Action brought on 9 October 1998 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-362/98)
                         (98/C 358/22)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (1)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                                    (98/C 358/24)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 October 1998 by the Commission of the European                    By order of 25 September 1998 the President of the Court
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal               of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (reference for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           AngouleÃme): SA Otor Godard v. Administration des
                                                                    Impôts.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,            (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary
    to comply with Council Directive 93/103/EC (1) of
    23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety
    and health requirements for work on board fishing
    vessels, and/or by failing to notify the Commission of
    those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to                   Removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (1)
    fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                                              (98/C 358/25)
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
    proceedings.
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (reference for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. The Secretary of
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 State for Trade and Industry ex parte: The Consumers'
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  Association and Which? Ltd.
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.          (1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.


title: Case C-146/03 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European Communities, supported by European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
24.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/13
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                         (Case C-142/03)                                      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC ( 1) of
                                                                              26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the
                         (2003/C 124/21)                                      transparency of financial relations between Member
                                                                              States and public undertakings, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
                                                                              Directive 2000/52/EC;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March            —     declare in any event that, by failing to communicate
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              forthwith those provisions to the Commission, the Portu-
represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil                 guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for                   Article 2 of Directive 2000/52/EC;
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91
      of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December                Pleas in law and main arguments
      1993 on the Community trade mark ( 1) by having
      failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
      Community trade mark courts;                                      The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
                                                                        expired on 31 July 2001.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2000, p. 75.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Member States are under an obligation to designate,
within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
information should have been communicated by 15 March                   Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris
1997 at the latest.                                                     International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on
                                                                        15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended
                                                                        Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.                                        European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/
                                                                        00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip
                                                                        Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Hold-
                                                                        ings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
                                                                        Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and
                                                                        Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, supported by European Parliament,
                                                                        Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Commission of the                    Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Repub-
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                  lic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
                         (Case C-144/03)
                                                                                (Case C-146/03 P)
                         (2003/C 124/22)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/23)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003
represented by M. França and J. Flett, acting as Agents, with an        by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.5.2003
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and                     —      failing to consider that the contested acts produced
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                                legal effects through the mere fact that they deprived
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,                           the Appellant of certain legal protections and advan-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                                   tages within the Community legal order;
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-                      —      considering that case C-345/00 P, FNAB, can be
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,                             applied to the instant case;
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                                —      failing to consider that the contested acts are open
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                to judicial review since they are manifestly illegal;
Communities on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris Inter-                                   and finally
national, Inc., established in Rye Brook, New York (United
States), represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and F. Marchini
Camia, lawyers.                                                                 —      as a first alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                reasoning is correct (quod non) that only the
                                                                                decision of the US District Court of the Eastern
                                                                                district of New York produces legal effects, then the
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                            Court of First Instance erred in law by considering,
                                                                                notwithstanding the circumstances of the case, that
                                                                                the contested acts cannot be reviewed under
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                             Article 230 EC;
      15 January 2003 in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00,
      T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01; and                                      —      as a second alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                reasoning is correct (quod non) that it is not possible
                                                                                to separately review a decision to initiate a law suit,
—     give final judgment on the issue of admissibility, pursuant                      it should have joined the question of admissibility
      to Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statutes of the                             to the substance.
      Court of Justice, by declaring the Appellant’s actions for
      annulment admissible and refer the case back to the
                                                                          2)    The Court of First Instance contradicted itself on an
      Court of First Instance for examination of the substance
                                                                                essential point of law.
      of the case; or
                                                                          3)    The Court of First Instance violated Article 292 EC.
—     failing that, refer the case back to the Court of First
      Instance for judgment on the admissibility issue and                4)    The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective
      subsequently and/or simultaneously on the substance of                    judicial protection.
      the case; and
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
—     order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs before            (2 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.
      the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.               (3 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
                                                                          (4 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant contends that, in the contested judgment, the
Court of First Instance made the following errors of law:                 Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
1)    The Court of First Instance violated the concept of a
      challengeable act under Article 230 EC by:                                                      (Case C-154/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/24)
      —     considering that bringing proceedings on the basis
            of the contested acts is comparable to bringing
            proceedings under Article 226 EC;
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      —     considering that the admitted lack of competence to           Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
            adopt the contested acts and the subsequent creation          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
            and exercise of such competence do not alter the              Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
            legal position of the parties to the case;                    Luxembourg.


title: Case C-573/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Air services — Second sentence of Article 23(1) — Price transparency — Computerised booking system — Air fares — Indication at all times of the final price)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV
      (Case C-573/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Air services - Second sentence of Article 23(1) - Price transparency - Computerised booking system - Air fares - Indication at all times of the final price)
      (2015/C 073/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

         Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time.

                  2)

                  The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown.

         (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-356/09: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Commission v Association Fédération Club B2A

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/30

         Order of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Commission v Association Fédération Club B2A
   (Case T-356/09) (1)

   2011/C 226/60
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-63/15: Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel stripes)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/37

      Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel stripes)
      (Case T-63/15)
      (2015/C 107/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, 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 two parallel stripes) — Application for registration No 10 926 764

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2560/2013-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea(s) in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-88/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Roermond (Netherlands), lodged on 20 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Jibril Jaoo

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Roermond (Netherlands), lodged on 20 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Jibril Jaoo
   (Case C-88/12)
   2012/C 126/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Roermond

      Party to the main proceedings

   Jibril Jaoo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4.17a of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Decree on Foreign Nationals 2000) contravene the prohibition of border checks or the prohibition of checks equivalent to border checks within the terms, respectively, of Articles 20 and 21 of the Schengen Borders Code? (1)

               2.

               If so, are non-EU citizens or persons who do not have a residence permit for one of the Member States of the EU also entitled to rely thereon?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).


title: Case C-219/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)
   (Case C-219/17)
   (2017/C 283/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest)

      Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 263(1), (2) and (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 256(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction, or that the national courts have jurisdiction, in an action challenging decisions to initiate procedures, measures of inquiry and non-binding proposals adopted by the competent national authority (as specified in paragraph 1 of the present order) in proceedings governed by Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, by Articles 1(5), 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (2) of 15 October 2013, by Articles 85, 86 and 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (3) of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 and by Articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Italian Banking Act?

               2.

               In particular, may the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union be asserted when the abovementioned measures are challenged, not in a general action for annulment, but in an action for a declaration of invalidity on the grounds of breach or circumvention of the ruling in Judgment No 882/2016 of 3 March 2016 of the Consiglio di Stato brought in accordance with Article 112 et seq. of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure relating to compliance with a judgment (that is to say, in proceedings peculiar to Italian administrative procedural law), when the decision of the EU Courts involves the interpretation and identification, in accordance with national law, of the objective limits of the ruling given in the judgment in question?

      (1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 21 August 1995 in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v. Finanzamt Donaueschingen (Case C-283/95)

text:
No C 268/18              iENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
nothing to prevent the Commission from persisting in its                 ( a ) Is Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ( ] ) to be
inaction, perpetuating the failure to act, or at least to give                  interpreted ( given that it must comply with Article 130r
deliberately ambiguous replies.                                                 of the Treaty ) as permitting the free use of halons ( that
                                                                                is, products which have a serious impact on the
The appellant will rely on all the arguments put forward                        environment ), subject only to limitations on their
before the Court of First Instance in the application and in                    production or on their use by producers, and not on
the reply .                                                                     their importation, but as prohibiting absolutely the use
                                                                                ( and hence both the production and the importation ) of
                                                                                HCFCs (that is, of products which have little impact on
                                                                                the environment )        for purposes not stated in
                                                                                Article 5 ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                ( b) Is not the provision in point in Regulation (EC )
Baden-Wiirttemberg by order of that court of 21 August                          No 3093/94 in substance a measure having equivalent
1995 in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v. Finanzamt                              effect to a quantitative restriction in so far as, in the
                            Donaueschingen                                      absence of any of the grounds of justification under
                           ( Case C-283/95 )                                    Article 36 of the Treaty, it restricts the free movement
                                                                                of a product throughout the Community ?
                              ( 95/C 268/38 )
                                                                         (c ) Does not the conduct of the Community and of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          institutions, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                           and particularly at the stages subsequent to its
Baden-Wiirttemberg ( Finance Court of the Land                                  adoption, constitute action of a public-law nature
Baden-Wiirttemberg) of 21 August 1 995 , which was                              designed to reinforce the dominant position of certain
received at the Court Registry on 25 August 1995 , for a                        operators, such action constituting in itself an instance
preliminary ruling in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v.                          of serious abuse for the purposes of Article 86 of the
Finanzamt Donaueschingen on the following questions :                           Treaty ?
1 . Is Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive ( 1 ) to be interpreted    ( d ) May legislation for the protection of the environment
      as meaning that services which the organizer of unlawful                  — and particularly Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 —
      and punishable games of chance provides to the players                    derogate ( be interpreted as derogating ) from the
      are not taxable ?                                                         Community rules on competition ( by thus permitting
                                                                                or facilitating restrictive agreements or the abuse of a
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative :                           dominant position ) or are the prohibitions under those
                                                                                rules unconditional and not subject to derogation,
      Is Article 11 A ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive to be                  precluding derogations or restrictions, whether
      interpreted as meaning that, in the case of unlawful                      introduced by the Community or by individual
      gaming in the form of roulette, the basis of assessment                   Member States ?
      for the operator's services to the players is the amount
      retained by the operator during a tax period ?                     (') OJ No L 333 , 22. 12 . 1994, p. 1 .
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative :
      How is the basis of assessment to be determined in cases
      described under Questions 1 and 2 ?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
( ] ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( OJ             Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin by order of that court of
      No L 145 , p . 1 ).                                                   11 August 1995 in the case of Suat Kol v. Land Berlin
                                                                                ( Case C-285/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/40 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del                  European Communities by order of the Eighth Chamber of
Giudice di Pace, Genoa, by order of that court of 8 August              the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin ( Higher Administrative
     1995 in the case of Safety Hi-Tech Sri v. S> &c T. Sri              Court, Berlin ) of 1 1 August 1995 , which was received at the
                             Case C-284/95 )                             Court Registry on 28 August 1 995, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the case of Suat Kol v . Land Berlin on the following
                             ( 95/C 268/39 )                             questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . Are periods of employment spent in a Member State by a
European Communities by an order of the Ufficio del                            Turkish worker on the basis of a residence permit
Giudice di Pace ( Magistrate's Office ), Genoa , of 8 August                   obtained by wilful and criminal deceit to be recognized
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             as legal employment within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
28 August 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safety               of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of
Hi-Tech Sri v. S. & T. Sri on the following questions :                        Association ?


title: Case T-416/06: Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/43

         Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission
   (Case T-416/06)
   (2007/C 42/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint Didier, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant, if necessary by means of an interlocutory order, to correct the material mistake in Annex I, Part A, and replace ‘0.75 g’ with ‘0.75 Kg’;

               —

               order the annulment of the following provisions of Directive 2006/132:

                           Article 3(2)

                           :

                              ‘by 30 June 2008’

                           Annex I

                           :

                              ‘30 June 2008’

                           Annex I, Part A

                           :

                              ‘on the following crops’

                                          ‘—

                                          cucumbers in greenhouses (closed hydroponic systems),

                                          —

                                          plums (for processing)’

                           Annex I, Part B

                           :

                              ‘Member States shall request the submission of further studies to address the potential endocrine disrupting properties of procymidone within two years after the adoption of the Test Guidelines on endocrine disruption by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They shall ensure that the notifier at whose request procymidone has been included in this Annex provide such studies to the Commission within two years of the adoption of the above test guidelines.’

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/132 amending Directive 91/414 to include procymidone as active substance (2) insofar as this directive i) only provides for a limited inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to Directive 91/414, ii) provides for specific conditions on the authorised use and iii) foresees a limited period of 18 months for the validity of the limited inclusion in Annex I.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested directive violates Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 5(1) and (4) of Directive 91/414. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested directive is inconsistent with Article 5(5) of Directive 91/414 and that the Commission therefore exceeded the limits of its discretion.
   The applicant moreover claims that the contested directive is procedurally flawed as the Commission is obliged to adopt the measures as they were proposed to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and the Council without amending them before their final adoption.
   Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested directive violates the applicant's legitimate expectations, as well as the principles of sound administration, subsidiarity, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and excellence and independence of scientific advice. The applicant also contends that the contested directive is not providing sufficient justification and that the duty to state reasons is therefore infringed.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested directive encroaches upon its right to conduct business activities and interferes with its right of property.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Directive 2006/132/EC of 11 December 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include procymidone as active substance (OJ 2006 L 349, p. 22).


title: Case T-630/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/53

         Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
   (Case T-630/16)
   (2016/C 402/63)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat, s.r.o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and declare to be invalid the decision of the European Chemicals Agency of 7 July 2016, according to which the applicant is to continue to be considered a large enterprise and as a result of which the applicant is not entitled to the fee reduction for a medium-sized enterprise, and allow the implementation of that decision to be deferred.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the applicant, the defendant by the abovementioned decision and its actions misused its power and infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty.
   The applicant claims that in verifying the status of a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), the defendant incorrectly assessed the independence of the applicant’s enterprise and incorrectly included in the calculation a number of employees and an amount of the applicant’s enterprise’s annual turnover plus allegedly linked or partner enterprises, which are not linked with the applicant’s enterprise or its partner enterprises under Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 or Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.
   The applicant submits that its declaration as to the incorrect size of the enterprise, which it made at the defendant’s request dated 2 June 2016, was essentially made with confidence in the defendant’s assessment and with the promise of a lower fee.
   The applicant points out that its registration had been suspended and it had expressly informed the defendant that it has not produced the relevant products (substances subject to registration) since 2011.
   The applicant claims that it follows from Article 13(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 that the right to a fee reduction on registration arises where it is possible to demonstrate such an entitlement and that it is thus appropriate, contrary to what is contended by the defendant, to allow the applicant to establish that entitlement.


title: Case F-123/13: Action brought on 18 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/54

         Action brought on 18 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-123/13)
   2014/C 52/106
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Joassart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to terminate, with immediate effect, the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision to dismiss the applicant, notified by letter of 7 March 2013;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-179/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/16

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission
   (Case T-179/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))
   2014/C 329/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmiedewerke Gröditz (Gröditz, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmidewerke Gröditz is set aside.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-59/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH
   (Case C-59/05)
   (2005/C 82/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany) of 2 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Siemens AG and VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH on the following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (1), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (2):

               1.

               Is the reputation of an ‘other distinguishing mark’ within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(g) of Directive 84/450/EEC taken advantage of unfairly where an advertiser adopts in identical form the core elements of a distinguishing mark which is known in trade circles (in this case, a system of order numbers) of a competitor, and refers to those identical elements in advertising?

               2.

               In determining whether unfair advantage is taken of a reputation for the purposes of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 84/450/EC, is the benefit to the advertiser and the consumer procured by the adoption of the identical system a relevant factor?

      (1)  OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.


title: Case C-308/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Hellenic Republic v Leo Kuhn

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Hellenic Republic v Leo Kuhn
   (Case C-308/17)
   (2017/C 283/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Hellenic Republic

      Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Leo Kuhn

      Questions referred

   Must Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that:

               1.

               even in the case — as here — of the repeated contractual transfer of a claim, the place of performance within the meaning of that provision is determined by the first contractual agreement?

               2.

               in the case of the assertion of a claim seeking compliance with the terms of a government bond such as that specifically issued by the Hellenic Republic in the present case, or seeking damages for non-fulfilment of that claim, the actual place of performance is established immediately upon the payment of interest from that government bond into an account of a person holding a domestic securities portfolio?

               3.

               the fact that a legal place of performance within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation was established by the first contractual agreement precludes the assumption that the subsequent actual performance of a contract establishes a — further — place of performance within the meaning of that provision?

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


title: Joined Cases T-139/10, T-280/10 to T-285/10 and T-349/10 to T-352/10: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Milux v OHIM (REFLUXCONTROL and Others) (Community trade mark — Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/27

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Milux v OHIM (REFLUXCONTROL and Others)
   (Joined Cases T-139/10, T-280/10 to T-285/10 and T-349/10 to T-352/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 145/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Actions against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2010 (Case R 1134/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign REFLUXCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-139/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1432/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign ANEURYSMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-280/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1433/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign APPETITECONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-281/10); of 8 June 2010 (Case R 1434/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign STOMACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-282/10); of 17 June 2010 (Case R 1435/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign BMICONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-283/10); of 3 June 2010 (Case R 1438/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign IMPLANTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-284/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1444/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign CHEMOCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-285/10); of 29 June 2010 (Case R 1436/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign OVUMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-349/10); of 2 July 2010 (Case R 1437/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign HEARTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-350/10); of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1439/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign VESICACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-351/10); and of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1443/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign RECTALCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T-352/10)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-139/10, T-280/10 to T-285/10 and T-349/10 to T-352/10 are joined for the purposes of the present order.

               2.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case F-48/13: Action brought on 21 May 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/63

         Action brought on 21 May 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-48/13)
   2013/C 207/111
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the 2011 staff report of the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the 2011 staff report of the applicant, as finalised and amended by decisions of the Appointing Authority of 18 July 2012 and 29 January 2013;

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 29 January 2013, rejecting the complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) SR;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-576/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — VIK v Commission

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/29

         Action brought on 1 October 2015 — VIK v Commission
   (Case T-576/15)
   (2016/C 007/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VIK Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e. V. (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Kahle, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2014 in the proceedings ‘State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users’ C(2014)8786 final, published in the Official Journal (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122), in so far as

                           —

                           in Article 1 and Article 3(1) of the decision, the defendant classifies the support of electricity production from renewable sources and the cap on the EEG-surcharge under the EEG-Act 2012 as new aid, and

                           —

                           in Article 2, Article 3(2), Article 6 and Article 7 of the decision, the defendant declares the incompatibility of the special compensation rule with the internal market and orders the recovery of the aid;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage
               The applicant claims that the special compensation rule does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since no advantage is granted to energy-intensive users by the cap on the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No selectivity
               The applicant also argues that the special compensation rule does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the condition of selectivity is absent. Energy-intensive users were not favoured over other users who are in a comparable factual and legal situation. In addition, the cap on the EEG-surcharge is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the rule.

               3.

               Third plea in law: No resources received from the State
               In that regard, it is claimed that neither the nationwide compensation scheme nor the special compensation rule of the EEG-Act 2012 contained aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since there is no burden on State resources.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: No restriction on competition
               In this respect, the applicant states that the cap on the EEG-surcharge merely serves to compensate for a competitive disadvantage which electricity/energy-intensive users must bear in comparison with sectors of users in other countries owing to the payment of the EEG-surcharge.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Compatibility of the aid with the common market
               The applicant claims that, if the cap on the EEG-surcharge were to be classified as aid, it would be compatible with the common market. The cap does not distort competition; rather, a competitive disadvantage for the users concerned is compensated for by this means.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: No new aid
               The applicant also claims that, if the Court classifies the special compensation rule as aid, it is existing aid, to which the procedure under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) is not applicable.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty
               The applicant submits in that regard that, by approving the EEG-Act 2000, the defendant created a legitimate expectation, which is infringed by the final decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-457/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/42

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission
   (Case C-457/13 P)
   2013/C 344/73
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli, K. Skelly, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in its entirety;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter by declaring the application in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded;

               —

               order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal;

         Should the Court decide to uphold the judgment of the General Court, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to:

               —

               maintain as definitive the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 (1) and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 (2) as well as those of Article 60(7) of the latter Regulation, to the extent that payments to producers organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until 15 October of the year of the delivery of the judgment of the Court or such future date thereafter as the Court thinks fit in respect to payments which relate to operational programmes approved before 30 May 2013.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission in the present case requests the Court to set aside the contested judgment of the General Court, to give final judgment in the matter by declaring the applications in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded, and to order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal
   This appeal arises from proceedings taken by the Applicants seeking an annulment of (i) Article 52(2)a and Annex VIII of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and (ii) annulment of Article 50(3) and Article 60(7) of Commission Regulation No 543/2011.
   The Applicants, at first instance were fruit and vegetable processors who claimed that the aforesaid provisions indirectly allow for Union funding of certain processing activities carried out by producer organisations.
   The General Court found the proceedings admissible. The General Court held that the granting of aid to producer organisations whose product was then either processed by the organisation itself or by a third party on its behalf, amounted to providing aid for processing activities which was outside of the scope of the Single CMO Regulation (3). In addition the General Court held that the Commission was not entitled to provide aid which discriminated to the detriment of the processors who are not members of a producer organisation and to the advantage of producer organisations in so far as they carry out processing activities.
   The Commission submits that in reaching these conclusions, the General Court erred on three counts.
   Firstly the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding the applicants’ actions admissible. The Commission argues that the measures in question are regulatory measures of general application which require implementing measures on the part of the Member States in order to produce legal effects. In addition, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding that the measures in question are of direct concern to the applicants. In reaching this conclusion the General Court held that the position of the applicants was the same as that of competitors of a recipient of state aid. The Commission submits that the General Court was incorrect in reaching this conclusion.
   On the substantive issue, the Commission submits that the General Court failed to correctly interpret the provisions of the Single CMO Regulation and in particular failed to have adequate regard to the margin of discretion conferred on the Commission by the Council to adopt implementing rules for the Single CMO Regulation.
   Finally, the Commission submits that the General Court incorrectly interpreted the principle of non-discrimination as it would apply to schemes providing financial aid under the Single CMO Regulation.
   Should the Court decide to dismiss the appeal, the Commission requests that the Court exercise its discretion under Article 264 of TFEU to suspend the effects of the order until 15 October of the year of delivery of its judgment. The Commission seeks such an order to ensure that the effects of the order will apply equally to all producer organisations and will not lead to undue hardship on producer organisations.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, OJ L 350 p. 1

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, OJ L 157, p. 1

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), OJ L 299, p. 1


title: Case C-171/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier national trade mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA
   (Case C-171/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier national trade mark - Likelihood of confusion)
   (2007/C 95/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ (represented by: M. Francetti and F. Jacobacci, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral and J. Novais Gonçalves, Agents), Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA (represented by: J.-P. Simon, avocet)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 January 2005 in Case T-147/03 Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) annulling, upon application by the proprietor of the national figurative mark QUANTIEME for goods in Classes 14 and 18, Decision R 109/2002-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the figurative Community trade mark QUANTUM for goods in Class 14
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-122/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-122/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 165/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U.Wölker and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and by M.G. Aiello, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p.32)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.05.2005.


Avis juridique important

|

E1995P0001

Request for an advisory opinion by Varbergs Tingsrätt by decision of that court of 2 March 1995 in the case of Samuelsson v. the Kingdom of Sweden (Case E-1/95)

Official Journal C 142 , 08/06/1995 P. 0006 - 0006

Request for an advisory opinion by Varbergs Tingsrätt by decision of that court of 2 March 1995 in the case of Samuelsson v. the Kingdom of Sweden (Case E-1/95) (95/C 142/08)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 2 March 1995 of Varbergs Tingsrätt (District Court of Varberg), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 March 1995, for an advisory opinion in the case of Ulf Samuelsson v. the Kingdom of Sweden, on the following question:Is Article 10 (a) of Council 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that section 9 (a) of the Swedish Wage Guarantee Act, which states that an employee is not entitled to remuneration if, within two years prior to the bankruptcy decision, he was granted remuneration through the guarantee for a claim which arose in mainly the same activity, having regard to its general scope, clearly exceeds the right of derogation permitted by Article 10 (a) of the Directive?(1) OJ No L 283, 20. 10. 1980, p. 23.


title: Case F-55/15: Action brought on 16 April 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/45

         Action brought on 16 April 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-55/15)
   (2015/C 213/73)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission’s decision, principally, in so far as it withdraws from the applicant the benefit of foreign residence allowance in favour of expatriation allowance and, in the alternative, in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts allegedly unlawfully paid and the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses allegedly incurred.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, annul the decision of 18 July 2014 in so far as it withdraws from the applicant the benefit of foreign residence allowance in favour of expatriation allowance, retroactively from 1 July 2009;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of 18 July 2014 in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts allegedly unlawfully paid;

               —

               Annul the decision of 7 January 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 12 September 2014, if necessary, and in any event, in the still further alternative, in so far as it refuses to reduce the monthly amounts deducted pursuant to Article 85 of the Statute;

               —

               Order compensation for the applicant’s pecuniary loss;

               —

               Order compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary loss, calculated as EUR 10  000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-13/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Media Logistik (PostModern) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PostModern — Earlier national word mark POST and earlier EU word mark Deutsche Post — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Media Logistik (PostModern)
   (Case T-13/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PostModern - Earlier national word mark POST and earlier EU word mark Deutsche Post - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court))
   (2017/C 256/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, K. Hamacher, and finally K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Media Logistik GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: S. Risthaus, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2014 (Case R 2063/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and Media Logistik.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case T-344/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — TOTAL v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/17

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — TOTAL v Commission
   (Case T-344/06)
   (2007/C 20/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: TOTAL SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, L. Godefroid and A. Lamothe, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the Commission Decision of 13 September 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — Netherlands) in so far as it concerns TOTAL SA in Articles 1(m), 2(m), 3 and 4;

               —

               alternatively, annul Articles 1(m) and 2(m) and reduce accordingly the amount of the fine imposed on TOTAL SA by the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — Netherlands) concerning a body of agreements and concerted practices designed to fix, for sales and purchases of road bitumen in the Netherlands, the gross price, a uniform rebate on the gross price for participating road builders and a smaller maximum rebate on the gross price for other road builders. Alternatively, it seeks the annulment or at least a substantial reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.
   The application contains five pleas.
   First, the applicant states that the Commission infringed the rules relating to the accountability of a parent company for the practices of its subsidiary. It claims that the Commission acted wrongly when it attributed to the applicant the infringement at issue which was committed by its subsidiary TOTAL Nederland NV and, therefore, held the applicant jointly and severally liable for the infringements. The applicant considers that the Commission committed an error of law in finding that the fact that the applicant held 100 % of the capital of its subsidiary was sufficient for it to have decisive influence over it. The applicant also alleges that the Commission committed an error of law in failing to undertake a serious examination of all the evidence showing which entities within the TOTAL Group might have been responsible for the practices at issue.
   Secondly, the applicant accuses the Commission of infringing the rules of evidence in failing to prove that the applicant exercised a decisive influence over the commercial policy of its subsidiary, TOTAL Nederland NV, on the relevant market, and in failing to take account of information which TOTAL SA submitted to enable it to delineate the undertaking in the TOTAL Group which was concerned.
   Also, the applicant considers that the Commission infringed the principle that it must not act in an arbitrary manner, when it stated in the contested decision that it had a discretion when deciding which entities within an undertaking it considered to be responsible for an infringement.
   Finally, the applicant states that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration in failing to send requests for information to the applicant during the investigation stage.
   Alternatively, the applicant relies on two pleas in support of its application for annulment or at least reduction of the fine imposed on it in the contested decision. It considers that the Commission infringed the rules applicable to the setting of fines. It states that, if the acts should have been imputed to TOTAL SA, the date taken by the Commission to fix the starting point for the applicants' participation in the infringement is not correct and the Commission has failed to give sufficient grounds for its decision on this point. The applicant claims moreover that the Commission failed to respect the principle of proportionality when it applied a multiplier for deterrence of 1.5, based on the worldwide turnover of TOTAL Group for the period of reference, despite the fact that no ground for complaint was attributed to the applicant for a part of the said period.