title: Case C-462/12: Action brought on 12 October 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/18

         Action brought on 12 October 2012 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-462/12)
   2012/C 379/30
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 14 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)

                           —

                           in that, through the adoption of Law No XCIV of 2010 on a special tax on certain sectors of activity (az egyes ágazatokat terhelő különadóról szóló 2010. évi XCIV. törvény), it requires undertakings which provide telecommunications services under a general authorisation to pay a special tax and

                           —

                           by failing to notify interested parties properly of the intention to amend the general authorisations, rights and conditions (of use and installation), and by failing to allow the interested parties sufficient time to express their views on the proposed amendments.

               —

               order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Law No XCIV of 2010 on a special tax on certain sectors of activity (az egyes ágazatokat terhelő különadóról szóló 2010. évi XCIV. törvény) introduced a new tax, called a special tax, on three main sectors of the Hungarian economy — retail trade activities, telecommunications activities and all commercial energy supply activities — which those affected have to pay for three consecutive years on the basis of their turnover before tax.
   In support of its claim for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations the Commission put forward the following pleas in law and arguments:

               Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council states that its aim is to implement an internal market in electronic communications networks and services through the harmonisation and simplification of authorisation rules and conditions. With that end in view the Directive emphasises the determination of the legislature that general authorisation schemes should not distort competition or prevent access to markets.

               The Directive lays down rules on the procedures for authorisation and the content of the authorisations as well as the nature and scope of the economic burdens which may be imposed in connection with those procedures. According to Article 12 of the Directive, any administrative charges imposed on electronic communications services may cover only the administrative costs which will be incurred in the management, control and enforcement of the general authorisation scheme and of rights of use and of specific obligations, as well as regulatory work involving preparation and enforcement of secondary legislation and administrative decisions.

               In the special tax, electronic communications services have to bear, in addition to administrative charges and management charges, a further financial burden, which, however, in breach of Article 12 of the Directive, is intended, not to finance administrative costs which will be incurred in the management of the general authorisation scheme, but to cover expenditure under the general budget of the Hungarian State.

               The Commission takes the view that the special tax thus collected is in the nature of a burden on electronic communications services under a general authorisation, significantly increases the financial burden borne by the suppliers of that service, is an obstacle to the free movement of telecommunications services and is intended to finance expenditure not permitted by the Directive, and, as such, is incompatible with Article 12 of the Directive.

               Finally, the Commission considers that Hungary did not properly inform those concerned of its intention to amend the general authorisations and the rights and conditions (of use or installation) or allow sufficient time for the interested parties to express their views on the proposed amendments. Accordingly, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Directive.


title: Case C-182/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — Valerie Lyttle and Others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Meaning of ‘establishment’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — Valerie Lyttle and Others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited
   (Case C-182/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
   (2015/C 236/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty

      Respondent: Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.
   Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-224/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 — Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — EU trade mark — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/5

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 — Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
      (Case C-224/14 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 454/11)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A.K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van België by order of that court of 17 June 1997 in the case of Awoyemi Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie (Case C-230/97)

text:
No C 252/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16 . 8 . 97
Article 3 ( 3 ) and Columns C, D and E of Annex I to the                      national driving licence issued by a Member State or a
Directive and, secondly, Article 4 (2 ), Article 5 or footnote                Community model driving licence and who could have
No 10 to Annex I to the Directive .                                           obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for
                                                                              that licence, but on 27 July 1993 had not made that
                                                                              exchange within the prescribed period, from being
(>) OJ No L 271 , 29 . 10 . 1979, p . 44 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 .
                                                                             treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered
                                                                             punishable by imprisonment or a fine ?
                                                                       (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1980, p . 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 237, 24 . 8 . 1991 , p. 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
van Belgie by order of that court of 17 June 1997 in the
     case of Awoyemi Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie
                           Case C-230/97 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
                            ( 97/C 252/35 )                            Staat, Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 17 June
                                                                       1997 in the case of A. M. L. Van Rooij v. Dagelijks
                                                                                Bestuur van het Waterschap de Dommel
                                                                                Case C-231 /97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Hof van Cassatie                                              ( 97/C 252/36 )
van Belgie ( Belgian Court of Cassation ) of 17 June 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 24 June
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Awoyemi
Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie on the following                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
questions :
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
                                                                       State ( Council of State ), Netherlands, of 17 June 1997,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June
                                                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. M. L. Van
1 . Do the provisions of the first Council Directive 80/               Rooij v. Dagelijks Bestuur van het Waterschap de Dommel
       1263/EEC (*) of 4 December 1980 on the introduction
                                                                       ( Management Committee of the Dommel Water Board ) on
       of a Community driving licence, in particular Article 8         the following questions :
       thereof, preclude the driving of a motor vehicle by a
       person who is not a citizen of the European Union but
       who holds a national driving licence issued by a                1 . Must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 2 ) ( d ) of
       Member State or a Community model driving licence                      Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
       and who could have obtained a licence from the host
                                                                             pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
       State in exchange for it, but who did not do so within                 discharged into the aquatic environment of the
       the prescribed period, from being treated as driving                   Community ( OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976, p. 23 ) be
       without a licence and thus rendered punishable by                      interpreted to include the precipitation of
       imprisonment or a fine ?                                              contaminated water on to surface water ? In that
                                                                             connection does the distance from which the steam in
                                                                              question is precipitated onto the surface water have
2 . Do Article 1 (2 ) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC ( 2 )                   any relevance ?
       of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, providing for
       mutual recognition for driving licences issued by the
       Member States, and the right provided for in                    2 . Does the term 'discharge' cover steam first precipitated
       Article 8 ( 1 ) of that Directive to exchange licences                 onto land and roofs and, then reaching the surface
       mean that a person who is not a citizen of the                        water, by way of storm water drains, whether
       European Union, but who holds a national driving                       belonging to the establishment concerned or to
       licence issued by a Member State or a Community                       residential or other buildings ? Is it relevant to the
       model driving licence and has his normal residence in                  reply to be given to this question whether the
       the territory of another Member State, has the right,                 contaminated steam reaches the surface water by way
       even where there are no national rules in this regard,                 of the    storm   water      drains  of the establishment
       to rely on the application of those provisions in court               concerned or via those belonging to third parties ?
       proceedings as from 1 July 1996 ?
                                                                       3 . If Questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the negative,
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, do                     is it permissible for national legislation to assign a
       Articles 1 (2 ) and 8 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 91/439/               different, more wide-ranging meaning to the term
       EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences have                           'discharge' than that contained in the Directive ?
       retroactive effect in the sense that they preclude the
       driving of a motor vehicle by a person who is not a
       citizen of the European Union but who holds a


title: Case T-537/15: Action brought on 14 September 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Verbis Alfa (InPost)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/41

         Action brought on 14 September 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Verbis Alfa (InPost)
   (Case T-537/15)
   (2015/C 371/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Verbis Alfa sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland), EasyPack sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘InPost’ — Registration No 11 049 558

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2015 in Case R 546/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in respect of identical services;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-83/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Silvan v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — 2013 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant — Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Commission GIP — Plea of illegality — Comparison of the merits — Account taken of the staff assessment reports — Lack of marks awarded or analytical assessments — Wording of the comments)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Silvan v Commission
   (Case F-83/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - 2013 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Commission GIP - Plea of illegality - Comparison of the merits - Account taken of the staff assessment reports - Lack of marks awarded or analytical assessments - Wording of the comments))
   (2015/C 363/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Juha Tapio Silvan (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 10) in the European Commission’s 2013 promotion procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 47.


title: Case T-127/01: Action brought on 12 June 2001 by C. Ripa di Meana against the European Parliament

text:
1.9.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 245/23
Action brought on 12 June 2001 by C. Ripa di Meana                               ment with the amount which Italian Members of Parlia-
                against the European Parliament                                  ment receive from the Italian Parliament. Consequently,
                                                                                the European Parliament should not be allowed to
                                                                                restrict entitlement to retirement pensions by unlawfully
                           (Case T-127/01)
                                                                                applying to its own Members the suspension of the
                                                                                pension of Members of the national Parliament provided
                           (2001/C 245/37)                                       for in Article 12 of the Italian regulation;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        —     suspending the pension which the applicant receives on
                                                                                account of services provided to the Parliament in the past,
                                                                                and in respect of which he paid contributions, for the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                     simple reason that he currently receives a salary from
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                       another ‘employer’, not only unfairly penalises him,
12 June 2001 by C. Ripa di Meana, represented by W. Viscar-                      but also results in unjust enrichment of the European
dini and G. Donà, Lawyers.                                                       Parliament;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     the European Parliament manages an autonomous pen-
—     first, annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the                sion scheme and thus cannot have recourse to the
      decision of the European Parliament — section for                          intentions expressed by other political authorities in
      financial rules relating to Members — of 26 March 2001,                    connection with other autonomous pension schemes
      reference no 106721 (sent by ordinary post and received                    provided for other parties;
      by the applicant on 4 April 2001), informing him of the
      suspension, following his election to the Regional Council
      of Umbria, of the pension he received as a former Member             —     the Community legislation at issue does not prohibit
      of the European Parliament;                                                the accumulation of pensions due to Members of the
                                                                                European Parliament with income earned from other
—     in the alternative, annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC               activities;
      Treaty, the decision of the European Parliament — section
      for financial rules relating to Members — of 26 March
      2001, reference no 106721, in so far as it concerns the
                                                                           —     in any event, even if application, by analogy, of Article 12
      suspension of his pension based in the legislation in force
                                                                                of the Italian regulation is lawful, suspension of the
      between 1979 and 1984;
                                                                                pension due to a former Member of the European
                                                                                Parliament can only be justified if he is elected to his
—     in any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the                 national Parliament. It cannot be justified if he is elected
      costs of the action.                                                       to a regional council;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     on 1 January 1998, when the Italian regulation came into
                                                                                force, the applicant had already acquired his entitlement
                                                                                to the pension by virtue of the legislation in force between
The applicant, who also brought Case T-83/99 (1), challenges                     1979 and 1984.
the European Parliament’s decision to suspend, following his
election to the Regional Council of Umbria, the pension which
he received as a former Member of the European Parliament.                 —     Consequently, even if application, by analogy, of
That decision was adopted on the basis of Article 12 of the                      Article 12 of the Italian regulation is lawful, the suspen-
Regolamento per gli Assegni Vitalizi dei Deputati (the Italian                   sion at issue in the present case is only justifiable in
regulation on life-annuities applicable to Members of the                        respect of pensions based on the legislation in force
Lower Chamber of the Italian Parliament). In this connection,                    between 1994 and 1999 and not in respect of pensions
it is apparent that Article 2(1) of Annex III to the Rules                       based on the legislation in force between 1979 and 1984.
Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
Members of the European Parliament refers to the Italian
regulation in so far as concerns the amount of, and detailed
procedures relating to, the provisional pension.
                                                                           (1) Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99 Ripa di Meana and
                                                                               Others v European Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493.
In support of his claim, the applicant argues that:
—     Article 2(1) of Annex III does not refer, purely and simply,
      to the Italian regulation, but merely aligns the amount of
      the pension for Italian Members of the European Parlia-


title: Case C-671/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2016 — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Groupe d’Animation du Quartier Européen de la Ville de Bruxelles ASBL, Association du Quartier Léopold ASBL, Brusselse Raad voor het Leefmilieu ASBL, Pierre Picard, David Weytsman v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2016 — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Groupe d’Animation du Quartier Européen de la Ville de Bruxelles ASBL, Association du Quartier Léopold ASBL, Brusselse Raad voor het Leefmilieu ASBL, Pierre Picard, David Weytsman v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-671/16)
   (2017/C 078/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Groupe d’Animation du Quartier Européen de la Ville de Bruxelles ASBL, Association du Quartier Léopold ASBL, Brusselse Raad voor het Leefmilieu ASBL, Pierre Picard, David Weytsman

      Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Question referred

   Must Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) be interpreted as including in the concept of ‘plans and programmes’ town planning regulations adopted by a regional authority:

               —

               which contain a map setting out the area to which they apply, limited to a single district, and defining various islands within that area to which different rules apply as regards the location and height of buildings; and

               —

               which also lay down specific planning provisions for areas situated in the areas around buildings, and precise indications on the spatial application of certain rules which they lay down taking into consideration the streets, straight lines traced perpendicular to those streets and distances in relation to the alignment of those streets; and

               —

               which pursue the objective of transforming the district concerned; and

               —

               which lay down the rules regarding the composition of the files of applications for planning permission subject to an environmental impact assessment in that district?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.


title: Case F-118/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014  — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Preliminary issues — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-118/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Preliminary issues - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 421/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Career Development Report relating to the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and annulment of the merit points awarded during the 2003 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 52 of 22/02/2014, p. 53.


title: Case T-159/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Puma v OHIM — Gemma Group (Device of a jumping animal)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Puma v OHIM — Gemma Group (Device of a jumping animal)
   (Case T-159/15)
   (2015/C 171/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gemma Group Srl (Cerasolo Ausa, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Device of a jumping animal) — Application for registration No 11 573 474

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2014 in Case R 1207/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Massimo Lombardini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-102/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181 / 19
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols against                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
              the Council of the European Union
                           ( Case T-99/97)                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 181 /36 )
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 f 1 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols, residing
at Halsteren ( Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange.                                                         Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Pablo Jimenez
                                                                         Fernandez against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( Case T-101 /97 )
— annul the Council's decision of 13 August 1996                                                      ( 97/C 181 /38 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                          (Language of the case: French)
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Council on 27 December 1996                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      by Pablo Jimenez Fernandez, residing at Overijse
                                                                         ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996
                                                                               rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                               Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                                adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Andre Pening against
                                                                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-100/97 )                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                             ( 97/C 181 /37 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
An action against the Commission of the European                         Case T-16/97 (').
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                     ( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
by Andre Pening, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Massimo Lombardini
                                                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
                                                                                ( Case T- 102/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                                     ( 97/C 181 /39 )
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                       An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- No C 181 /20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Massimo Lombardini, residing in Brussels, represented
by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                Case T- 16/97 (').
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
    consideration to the possible application of
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Ginette Nabavi
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 04/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                                                   ( 97/C 181 /41 )
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                        by Ginette Nabavi , residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
                                                                        represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Case T-16/97 (').                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of
                                                                             Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Georges Herbillon
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                          ( Case T-103/97 )
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                            ( 97/C 181 /40 )
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 (').
by Georges Herbillon, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jorge D. Savio against
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                               the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                               ( Case T-105 /97 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     ( 97/C 181 /42 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            by Jorge D. Savio, residing in Brussels, represented by


title: Case C-219/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(1) and (2) — Concept of ‘economic activities’ — Deduction of input tax — Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling — Supply to the network — Remuneration — Electricity production lower than consumption)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/33

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz
   (Case C-219/12) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(1) and (2) - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Deduction of input tax - Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling - Supply to the network - Remuneration - Electricity production lower than consumption)
   2013/C 225/56
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

      In the presence of: Thomas Fuchs

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Photovoltaic installation for electricity production near a private dwelling without a power storage unit — Sale of the energy produced to a company which resupplies that dwelling with the energy which it requires — Energy production lower than consumption in the long term

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a photovoltaic installation on or adjacent to a house which is used as a dwelling, which is designed such that the electricity produced is (i) always less than the electricity privately consumed by its operator and (ii) supplied to the network in exchange for income on a continuing basis, falls within the concept of ‘economic activities’ as defined in that Article.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-104/04: Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/30

         Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-104/04)
   (2004/C 94/68)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.-F. Pasquier and M. Shotter, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(2) and Article 8(1) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 in conjunction with the Annex thereto (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The amendments made to the French Code des postes et télécommunications (Post and Telecommunications Code) do not put an end to the ground for complaint relating to the inconsistency of the obligatory contribution to research and development with the requirements of the directive. The Code requires the operators concerned to contribute to telecommunications research and development in the European Community in the sum of a minimum annual amount equal to 5 % of their investment. However that obligation is not included in the exhaustive list of the conditions which may be attached to licences and does not fall within any of the categories of conditions set out in the Annex to the directive.

      (1)  Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15).


title: Case C-558/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf
   (Case C-558/16)
   (2017/C 030/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Kammergericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

      Defendant: Sven Mahnkopf

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(1) of the EU Succession Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of the regulation (‘succession’) also covers provisions of national law which, like Paragraph 1371(1) of the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB, Civil Code), govern questions relating to matrimonial property regimes after the death of one spouse by increasing the share of the estate on intestacy of the other spouse?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, are Articles 68(l) and 67(1) of the EU Succession Regulation in any case to be interpreted as meaning that the share of the surviving spouse may be recorded in full in the European Certificate of Succession, even if a portion of it stems from an increase pursuant to a rule governing matrimonial property regimes like Paragraph 1371(1) of the Civil Code?
               If this question is to be answered in the negative in principle, can it nevertheless be answered in the affirmative exceptionally for situations where

                           (a)

                           the purpose of the Certificate of Succession is limited to asserting rights of the heirs in a certain other Member States to property of the deceased located there, and

                           (b)

                           the ruling on succession (Articles 4 and 21 of the EU Succession Regulation) and — irrespective of which conflict-of-law rules are applied — the questions relating to matrimonial property regimes are to be assessed on the basis of the same national legal system.

               3.

               If the first and second questions are answered in the negative in their entirety, is Article 68(l) of the EU Succession Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the share of the surviving spouse increased pursuant to a rule governing matrimonial property regimes may be recorded in full in the European Certificate of Succession, but for information purposes only on account of the increase?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession; OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.


title: Case C-504/14: Action brought on 11 November 2014  — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/19

         Action brought on 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-504/14)
   (2015/C 007/25)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and C Hermes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under:

                           —

                           Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/ΕEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (a) by failing to take the appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species, and the disturbance of the species for which a site had been designated, and (b) having permitted (without carrying out any appropriate assessment of the implications, as is laid down in Article 6(3)) activities which are likely to have a significant effect on the site at issue, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, reducing and destroying the nesting area of the priority species Caretta caretta, which is present there, causing disturbance to the species concerned and, ultimately, reducing and destroying the sand dune habitats 2110, 2220 and the priority habitat 2250;

                           —

                           Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of that directive, by failing to take the requisite measures to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta (a priority species) in Kyparissia Bay in a way which avoids any disturbance of the species concerned during its breeding period and any activity which can cause deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               This infringement relates to: (a) the impact of several projects and activities on the Natura 2000 GR2550005 ‘Thines Kyparissias’ site (proposed Site of Community Importance, SCI, from 1 April 1997, and Site of Community Importance, SCI, from 1 September 2006) and, more particularly, on the priority species Caretta caretta and the sand dune habitats, including the priority habitat 2250* Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp and (b) failure to take the necessary measures to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection of the sea turtle Caretta caretta, in the site in question, in order to avoid both any disturbance of that species during its breeding period and any activity which can cause deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites.

               2.

               In 1998, subsequent to the approval of the competent Ministry, the LIFE-Nature management plan LIFE98NAT/GR/5262 (‘Application of Management Plan for Caretta caretta in Southern Kyparissia’) was initiated. The LIFE management plan culminated in 2002 in the elaboration of a Special Environmental Study (ΕPM under the Greek legislation) where reference was made to the characteristics of the species and to the need for its effective protection.

               3.

               Following NGO reports and a visit by Commission staff in July 2011 to the site, the Commission initiated the procedure relating to the infringement of the provisions of Directive 92/43/ΕEC which are set out in the form of order sought in this action.

               4.

               First, the Commission claims that the Hellenic Republic, contrary to the provisions of Article 12 of the directive, failed to ensure:
               The establishment of a system of strict protection of the species listed in Annex IV to the directive, in order to prohibit:

                           —

                           deliberate disturbance, particularly in the breeding period;

                           —

                           deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

               5.

               In particular, there is no full and coherent legislative framework in Greece and there is a failure to implement concrete, specific and effective measures of protection, together with a toleration of activities which not only are likely to cause the deterioration/destruction of the breeding sites but are also likely to disturb the turtle concerned, particularly in the incubation period, the hatching of eggs and in the period when new-born turtles travel to the sea.

               6.

               Further, the Commission claims that the provisions of Article 6(2) and (3) of the directive are infringed in that:

                           (a)

                           the deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of species in designated sites is not avoided. In fact, Greece, by tolerating, contrary to Article 6(2), a series of uncontrolled and/or unregulated activities, has failed in this particular case to take the appropriate measures to ensure the avoidance of such deterioration of habitats and disturbance of species.

                           (b)

                           the identified activities at issue were carried out without the prior completion of the required appropriate assessment of their implications either on an individual basis for each particular project or for the evaluation of their combined effects, whereas Article 6(3) of the directive requires that there should be an appropriate assessment of every plan or project which is not directly concerned with or necessary to the conservation of the habitat but which is likely to have significant effects on it, with regard to the implications for its conservation.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-415/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen (Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Framework agreement on part-time work — Full-time worker having been unable to exercise her entitlement to paid annual leave during the reference period — Move of that worker to a scheme of part-time work — National provision or practice providing for a reduction in the number of days of paid leave previously accumulated thereby to be in proportion to the number of days of part-time work per week)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/50

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Bianca Brandes v Land Niedersachsen
   (Case C-415/12) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Framework agreement on part-time work - Full-time worker having been unable to exercise her entitlement to paid annual leave during the reference period - Move of that worker to a scheme of part-time work - National provision or practice providing for a reduction in the number of days of paid leave previously accumulated thereby to be in proportion to the number of days of part-time work per week)
   2013/C 225/89
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Nienburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Brandes

      Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Interpretation of Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10) — Employee changing from full-time to part-time work — Legislation of a Member State allowing, in such a case, a redistribution of unused entitlement to annual leave accrued during full-time work which results in a reduction in the number of leave days

      Operative part of the order

   The relevant European Union law, in particular, Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national provisions or a national practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the number of days of paid annual leave which a full-time worker was unable to exercise during the reference period is, due to the fact that that worker moved to a scheme of part-time work, subject to a reduction which is proportional to the difference between the number of days of work per week carried out by that worker before and after such a move to part-time work.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case C-548/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/38

         Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-548/07)
   (2008/C 22/68)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M. van Beek)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 96/34/EC (1) on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC and, more specifically, under Clauses 1(2), 2(1), 2(3)(b), 2(3)(e) and (f), 2(4) and 2(6) of the agreement annexed to that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Commission, after examining all the Greek legislation for the transposition into Greek law of Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, found that certain clauses of that framework agreement confirmed by the directive were still transposed deficiently and incorrectly in relation to workers in the merchant navy.

               2.

               More specifically, the relevant Greek legislation which ratifies collective agreements in the field has a restricted scope since it does not apply to workers on all merchant vessels.

               3.

               In addition, in order for the foregoing workers to be recognised as having the right to parental leave, it is necessary under the Greek legislation for the following conditions, which are additional to those set out in the directive, to apply:

                           —

                           12 months' previous service on the same vessel;

                           —

                           employment of at least 30 persons on that vessel;

                           —

                           proof that the other parent is working;

                           —

                           classification of the return from parental leave as a new seaman's contract and a required new period of work of a minimum of 6 or 7 months;

                           —

                           assumption of the costs of the sending of a replacement by the navy;

                           —

                           application of the national legislation in question only to seamen's contracts which commence after the entry into force of the collective agreements;

                           —

                           classification of commercial obligations as grounds of force majeure justifying not granting parental leave.

               4.

               Finally, the Commission states that there is no mention in either the collective agreements or the ministerial decrees ratifying them of the question of the protection of workers from dismissal on the grounds of applying for or taking parental leave.

               5.

               Therefore, the Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 96/34/EC and, more specifically, under Clauses 1(2), 2(1), 2(3)(b), 2(3)(e) and (f), 2(4) and 2(6) of the framework agreement on parental leave annexed to that directive.

      (1)  OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4.


title: Case T-278/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Wesergold Getränke v OHIM Lidl Stiftung — (WESTERN GOLD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD — Earlier national, Community and international word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Decision on the appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Wesergold Getränke v OHIM Lidl Stiftung — (WESTERN GOLD)
   (Case T-278/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD - Earlier national, Community and international word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: T. Melchert, P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and M. Wolter, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-373/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg in Ceyhun Aydinli v Land Baden-Württemberg (EEC-Turkey Association — Free movement of workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Articles 6 and 7 — Criminal conviction — Prison sentence — Effect on right of residence)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-373/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg in Ceyhun Aydinli v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association - Free movement of workers - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Articles 6 and 7 - Criminal conviction - Prison sentence - Effect on right of residence)
   (2005/C 217/19)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-373/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg (Germany), made by decision of 12 March 2003, received at the Court on 5 September 2003, in the proceedings between Ceyhun Aydinli and Land Baden-Württemberg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   A Turkish national who enjoys the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not forfeit that right either as a result of his prolonged absence from the labour market due to imprisonment, even for a period of several years followed by long-term drug treatment, or on account of the fact that at the time of the decision to expel him he was an adult and no longer resided with the Turkish worker from whom he derived his right of residence but lived independently.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2005.


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Case T-340/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/27

         Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-340/14)
   2014/C 261/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine; and

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal basis for the contested decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU. The applicant submits that as the contested decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the contested regulation. At the time the restrictive measures were imposed, there was, according to the applicant, no charge or claim against him that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law or violated any human rights in Ukraine.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection as the basis on which the applicant is listed amounts to a public proclamation of guilt prior to any judicial determination of the issue and as the applicant has not been given any particular information in relation to the reasons indicated in the contested measures for his inclusion on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures despite his request to the Council for information.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his listing. The applicant alleges that no details have been provided as to the nature of the conduct of the applicant that led to his listing. The applicant further alleges that no details have been provided as to the entity responsible for the criminal proceedings to which the applicant is allegedly subject, nor as to the date on which the proceedings were opened against the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation as the restrictive measures were not provided for by law and were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council relied on materially inaccurate facts and committed a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that according to the information available to him no criminal proceedings or investigations are being conducted against him in relation to the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer out of Ukraine.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to ensure the relevance and validity of the evidence underlying the listing of the applicant as it failed to consider whether the current Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine had authority under the Constitution of Ukraine to commence investigations against the applicant and failed to take into consideration that an investigation against the applicant in Austria was closed because of insufficient evidence to support the allegations against the applicant of embezzlement of state funds.


title: Case C-263/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Whirlpool Europe Srl and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Whirlpool Europe Srl and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico
   (Case C-263/17)
   (2017/C 309/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Whirlpool Europe Srl, Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA, FCA Italy SpA, FCA Group Purchasing Srl, FCA Melfi SpA, Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA, Versalis SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation?

               2.

               If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems?

               3.

               Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28?

               4.

               Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permit the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals?

               5.

               In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case C-337/14: Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Elvira Mandl, Helmut Mandl v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Elvira Mandl, Helmut Mandl v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-337/14) (1)

   (2014/C 431/28)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-468/10 and C-469/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) (C-468/10), Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) (C-469/10) v Administración del Estado (Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 7(f) — Direct effect)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/18

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) (C-468/10), Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) (C-469/10) v Administración del Estado
      (Joined Cases C-468/10 and C-469/10) (1)

      (Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 7(f) - Direct effect)
      (2012/C 25/30)
      Language of the cases: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) (C-468/10), Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) (C-469/10)

         Defendant: Administración del Estado

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Processing of data by controllers and communication to the addressees to satisfy their respective legitimate interests — Additional requirements — Direct effect of the provisions of a directive

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as precluding national rules which, in the absence of the data subject’s consent, and in order to allow such processing of that data subject’s personal data as is necessary to pursue a legitimate interest of the data controller or of the third party or parties to whom those data are disclosed, require not only that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject be respected, but also that the data should appear in public sources, thereby excluding, in a categorical and generalised way, any processing of data not appearing in such sources.

                  2.

                  Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 has direct effect.

         (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-282/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor in a market economy test — Application where the State acts as vendor — Determination of the market price)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission
   (Case T-282/08) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor in a market economy test - Application where the State acts as vendor - Determination of the market price)
   2012/C 109/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and K. Gross and subsequently V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-608/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014  — Elena Delia Pondiche v The Romanian State and Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Elena Delia Pondiche v The Romanian State and Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   (Case C-608/14)
   (2015/C 089/11)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Delia Pondiche

      Defendants: The Romanian State and Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării

      Questions referred

               1.

               May social protection, the rights of the child and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as guaranteed in EU law by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 21(1), 24(1) and (2), 34 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 3(1)(b) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) be interpreted as precluding certain provisions of national law which limit, with no objective and reasonable justification, the amount of the child maintenance allowance on the basis of the date of birth of the child rather than the date of conception, even though that child, if born alive and viable, can be considered to have existed from that date?

               2.

               Does Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului No 111/2010 introduce a measure discriminating between people who are in identical situations, that is to say, between children conceived and born before 31 December 2010 and children conceived before 31 December 2010 and born after that date?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2003 in Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Urgency — None)

text:
29.11.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/25
3.    Reserves the costs.                                                  Th. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer. The additional party before
                                                                           the Board of Appeal was Conceria Toska S.R.L., Milan (Italy).
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     defendant of 13 May 2003 (Case R 369/2002-2);
                             INSTANCE
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                      of 16 September 2003
in Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez v
        Commission of the European Communities                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(Interim measures — Application for suspension of oper-
                    ation — Urgency — None)                                Applicant for Com-            Conceria Toska S.R.L.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 289/53)
                                                                           Community trade mark          Word mark TOSKA for goods
                                                                           sought:                       in Class 18 (including bags) —
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                       application No 743427
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         Applicant
In Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing                sign cited in the oppo-
in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Iturriagagoititia and             sition:
K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and                Mark or sign cited in         German word mark TOSCA for
H. Tserepa- Lacombe) — application for suspension of the                   opposition:                   perfumes (including ‘parfum’, ‘eau
operation of the Commission’s decision of 12 May 2003                                                    de toilette’, and ‘eau de parfum
rejecting the application to renew the applicant’s temporary                                             pour femmes’)
staff contract, the President made an order on 16 September
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                           Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 —    The opposition based on the
                                                                                mark with reputation is well
                                                                                founded       pursuant      to
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1).
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co.                                                     —    There is a likelihood of con-
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                       fusion between the opposing
         Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                marks.
                           (Case T-263/03)                                                               —    There are certain similarities
                                                                                between the         opposing
                                                                                goods.
                          (2003/C 289/54)
                                                                                —    The earlier mark is a mark
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                             with reputation within the
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was                                             meaning of Article 8(5) of
                          submitted: German)                                                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, represented by


title: Case C-85/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Landsbanki Islands HF v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Landsbanki Islands HF v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux
   (Case C-85/12)
   2012/C 118/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landsbanki Islands HF

      Defendants: Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (1) be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial establishment, such as those under Icelandic Law No 44/2009 of 15 April 2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by a administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles?

               2.

               Must Article 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 98 of the Icelandic law of 20 December 2002, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial establishment as from the entry into force of a moratorium, from having effect in regard to interim protective measures adopted in another Member State prior to the declaration of the moratorium?

      (1)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).