title: Case C-438/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — Otmar Greser v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — Otmar Greser v Bundesagentur für Arbeit
   (Case C-438/06)
   (2006/C 326/72)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Würzburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Otmar Greser

      Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit
   Question referred
   The preliminary issue in the present case is how Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) is to be interpreted. Under that provision, must a worker return to his place of residence or is it sufficient that he returns to another place in the Member State once a week?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.


title: Case F-4/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/54

         Action brought on 21 January 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission
   (Case F-4/09)
   (2009/C 69/120)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jorge De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant to unit TREN.B.3
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 11 April 2008 and 21 October 2008;

               —

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


title: Case C-478/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Roberto Siddu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Identical questions — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — National rules — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past — Restriction — Compelling reasons of general interest — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/5

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Roberto Siddu
   (Case C-478/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Identical questions - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - National rules - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past - Restriction - Compelling reasons of general interest - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 127/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari — Italy

      Criminal proceedings against

   Roberto Siddu

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders concerning licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past on account of a reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-327/11: Order of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Vinci Energies Schweiz AG v OHIM — Accentro Real Estate (ESTAVIS 1993) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/11

         Order of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Vinci Energies Schweiz AG v OHIM — Accentro Real Estate (ESTAVIS 1993)
   (Case T-327/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 228/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vinci Energies Schweiz AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by G. Schneider and subsequently by G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Accentro Real Estate AG, previously Estavis AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented initially by T. Weiland and subsequently by T. Weiland and S. Müller, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2011 (case R 231/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vinci Energies Schweiz AG and Estavis AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

               3.

               The intervener shall pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-473/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06, Berrisford v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/42

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06, Berrisford v Commission
   (Case T-473/07 P)
   (2008/C 64/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Martin and K. Hermann, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgiím)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 in so far as it holds, following the examination of the first part of the second plea, alleging failure to take any account of the fact that he had reached the promotion threshold two times but had not been promoted during the earlier exercises at first instance, that the Appointing Authority has therefore vitiated the consideration of the applicant's comparative merits at first instance with an error of law and, therefore, in this case, a manifest error of assessment;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the Commission seeks partial annulment of the judgment of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 Berrisford v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled its decision not to include the applicant's name on the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure and dismissed the action with respect to the remainder of the applicant's forms of order.
   In support of its appeal the Commission first puts forward two pleas alleging errors of law which it claims the CST committed in the contested judgment.
   First, the Commission claims that the CST has infringed Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in so far as it laid down an obligation for the Appointing Authority to take account, by awarding extra points during the consideration of the applicant's merits, of the fact that he was put forward on two occasions by his directorate general in the procedure for ‘reserve officials’.
   The second error of law that the Commission complains of in the contested decision is an infringement of Article 13(1) and (3)(b) of General Implementing Provisions in that the CST failed to recognise that the applicant's situation in 2003 and 2004 had been implicitly taken into consideration when the AIPN awarded points as a merit aspect related to the length of time in his grade.
   Finally, the Commission relies on a plea alleging that the reasoning of the contested decision is contradictory.


title: Case C-96/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 March 2009 by Anheuser-Busch, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Anheuser-Busch, Inc

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/26

         Appeal brought on 10 March 2009 by Anheuser-Busch, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Anheuser-Busch, Inc
   (Case C-96/09 P)
   2009/C 113/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin, B. Goebel, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06 with the exception of the order numbered 1,

               2.

               give final judgment on the dispute by rejecting the order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First Instance and

               3.

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that

               1.

               The Court of First Instance erred in law when effectively denying the competence of the Office to determine that Budvar had failed to meet its burden of establishing rights under Art. 8(4) (1) when there were serious doubts as to the validity of these rights (alleged appellations of origin for ‘BUD’).

               2.

               The Court of First Instance misconstrued the qualitative and quantitative requirements of the Community law requirement of ‘use in the course of trade’ under Article 8(4). First, it held that this requirement was to be interpreted as meaning any commercial use outside the merely private sphere, holding in particular that it was not required to genuinely use the alleged Article 8(4) right as would be the case with trade marks. In this context, it allowed for ‘free of charge’ shipments to be considered ‘use in the course of trade’ as well as use in a different function (trade mark use rather than appellation of origin use). Second, the contested decision erroneously allowed for use after the application date of the opposed trade mark to be taken into account and thereby disregarded that for a prior right to be suitable as a ground of opposition under Article 8, all conditions for this ground of opposition must be present at the time of filing of the opposed application. Third, the Court misconstrued Article 8(4) by holding that, in deviation from the principle of territoriality; use could be taken into account that had occurred in countries other than the countries where the alleged Article 8(4) rights exist.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance also misconstrued the requirement ‘of more than mere local significance’. It essentially found this requirement to be met by the fact that the alleged
               Article 8(4) right originated from a third country and was extended into two member states of the European Union. It did not ask whether the right at issue had gained more than mere local significance in the two actual member states for which it was claimed, thereby opening the door to Article 8(4) rights from outside the European Union.

               4.

               The second ground of appeal is a violation of Article 8(4)(b) together with Article 74(1). Article 8(4)(b) requires that the national right entitles Budvar to prohibit the use of the opposed trade mark. The Board of Appeal had determined, based on the evidence submitted by the parties and applying the established rule that the burden of proof in OHIM opposition proceedings is on the opponent, that Budvar had not proved that it was able, under the national law applying in either France or Austria, to prohibit the use of the trade mark ‘BUD’. The Court of First Instance, however, held contrary to Article 74(1) and Article 8(4)(b) that OHIM should of its own motion investigate the law and legal developments supporting the alleged Article 8(4) rights beyond the submissions of the parties, rather than dismissing the opposition for lack of proof of Budvar's alleged rights.

               5.

               Altogether, the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance has given an interpretation to Article 8(4) which is difficult to reconcile with the wording of this provision and impossible to reconcile with the objective of Regulation No. 40/94 to create a well functioning Community wide uniform trade mark right in order to foster intra-Community trade.

               6.

               Each of these violations of the law by the Court of First Instance led to the annulment of the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal, and is therefore — each separately — reason to set aside the contested judgment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1


title: Case C-646/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F), formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark (Appeal — State aid — Tax-reduction measures — Seafarers working on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register — Article 88(3) EC — Preliminary examination stage — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Conditions for initiating the formal investigation procedure — Existence of doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid with the common market — Period for the examination)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F), formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-646/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Tax-reduction measures - Seafarers working on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register - Article 88(3) EC - Preliminary examination stage - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Conditions for initiating the formal investigation procedure - Existence of doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid with the common market - Period for the examination)
   2013/C 71/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F), formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, S. Aparicio Hill, abogada, and V. Edwards, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and C. Thorning, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV 3F v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 finding the tax-reduction measures applicable to seafarers on board Danish vessels to be State aid compatible with the common market (Case C-319/07 P referred back after successful appeal)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F) to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-577/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-577/16)
   (2017/C 063/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in conjunction with Annex I thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the production of polymers and of the polymer polycarbonate in particular in installations with a production capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day falls within the activity defined therein as production of bulk organic chemicals by cracking, reforming, partial or full oxidation or by similar processes?

               2.

               If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, does the operator of such an installation have a claim to free allocation of emissions allowances arising from a direct application of the rules of Directive 2003/87/EC and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (2) if there can be no free allocation of emissions allowances under national law solely because the Member State in question did not include installations for the production of polymers in the scope of the national law implementing Directive 2003/87/EC and such installations do not take part in emissions trading for that reason alone?

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (2)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case T-123/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Carrs Paper Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Proceedings for the liquidation of the applicant — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/20

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Carrs Paper Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-123/02) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Proceedings for the liquidation of the applicant - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 190/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Carrs Paper Ltd (Shirley, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston and A. Bywater, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and A. Whelan, acting as Agents, and by M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)
   Re:
   Applicant for annulment, or in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — carbonless paper) (OJ 2004 L 115, p.1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The applicant is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.


title: Case T-143/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Refusal of the application for reimbursement of 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-143/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Social security - Refusal of the application for reimbursement of 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant)
   (2008/C 285/77)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Inter alia, an application for annulment of the decisions of the office responsible for settling claims of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant or to reimburse the expenses for a medical visit in accordance with the rules applicable to consultations of medical experts, and an application that the Commission be ordered to pay certain medical expenses for the applicant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223 of 22.9.2007 (formerly Case F-20/07).


title: Case T-603/13: Order of the Court of 24 June 2014  — Léon Van Parys v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs Union — Request by the Commission for supplementary information from the Belgian authorities — Letter seeking information from the applicant as regards the request — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/62

         Order of the Court of 24 June 2014 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-603/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Customs Union - Request by the Commission for supplementary information from the Belgian authorities - Letter seeking information from the applicant as regards the request - Challengeable act - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/104
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 16 September 2013, requesting supplementary information from the Belgian Administration of Customs and Excise, and the Commission’s letter of the same day informing the applicant of that request and the suspension of the treatment period pursuant to Article 907 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and, second; application for declaration that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 has taken effect to the benefit of the applicant as a result of the judgment of 19 March 2013, Van Parys Firma v Commission (T-324/10, not yet published in the ECR).

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2)

               The applicant Firma Leon Van Parys is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-298/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA
   (Case C-298/04)
   (2004/C 251/08)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto (Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of information which makes it possible to increase RC auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, including in view of the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice?

               2.

               Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national provision similar to that in Article 33 of Italian Law 287/90 under which a claim for damages for infringement of Community and national provisions for anti-competitive agreements must be made also by third parties before a court other than that which usually has jurisdiction for claims of similar value, thus involving a considerable increase in costs and time?

               3.

               Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited by that Community provision and claim damages for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

               4.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted practice came to an end?

               5.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where the national court sees that the damages that can be awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party in order to make the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?


title: Case C-186/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Maria Kastrinaki v A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Maria Kastrinaki v A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki
   (Case C-186/08)
   (2008/C 171/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Kastrinaki

      Defendant: A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki
   Question referred
   Is it open to the competent authorities, for the purposes of the provisions of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, as transposed into Greek law by Joint Ministerial Decision No Α4/4112/247/1992, interpreted in the light of Article 39(1), the first paragraph of Article 40, Articles 43, 47(1), 49 and 55 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to prevent a national of a Member State, the holder of a diploma falling within the scope of Directive 89/48/EEC, who is employed by a legal person governed by public law, under a contract of employment of unlimited duration governed by private law, and who has been granted a licence by the competent authorities of the original Member State to use a professional title and by the competent authorities of the host Member State to practice the profession, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, as transposed into Greek law by Joint Ministerial Decision No Α4/4112/247/1992, from progressing in career and salary by way of a permanent appointment in a fixed post as a civil servant in the university-education level grade and salary scale, on the ground that recognition of the academic equivalence of the university educational qualification from the original Member State is not possible, since part of the studies were completed in the host Member State under a franchising agreement with a private educational organisation which is not recognised in that Member State as an educational establishment?


title: Case C-303/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment Tribunal (London South) made on 10 July 2006 — S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment Tribunal (London South) made on 10 July 2006 — S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law
   (Case C-303/06)
   (2006/C 237/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Employment Tribunal (London South)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: S. Coleman

      Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law
   Questions referred

               1.

               In the context of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability, does the Directive (1) only protect from direct discrimination and harassment persons who are themselves disabled?

               2.

               If the answer to Question (1) above is in the negative, does the Directive protect employees who, though they are not themselves disabled, are treated less favourably or harassed on the ground of their association with a person who is disabled?

               3.

               Where an employer treats an employee less favourably than he treats or would treat other employees, and it is established that the ground for the treatment of the employee is that the employee has a disabled son for whom the employee cares, is that treatment direct discrimination in breach of the principle of equal treatment established by the Directive?

               4.

               Where an employer harasses an employee, and it is established that the ground for the treatment of the employee is that the employee has a disabled son for whom the employee cares, is that harassment a breach of the principle of equal treatment established by the Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, p. 16


title: Case C-285/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Société Moteurs Leroy Somer v Société Dalkia France, Société Ace Europe (Liability for defective products — Directive 85/374/EEC — Scope — Damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose — National system permitting the injured person to seek compensation for such damage, where he simply proves the damage, the defect and the causal link — Compatibility)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Société Moteurs Leroy Somer v Société Dalkia France, Société Ace Europe
   (Case C-285/08) (1)

   (Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Scope - Damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose - National system permitting the injured person to seek compensation for such damage, where he simply proves the damage, the defect and the causal link - Compatibility)
   2009/C 180/33
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Moteurs Leroy Somer

      Defendants: Société Dalkia France, Société Ace Europe

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — Material scope of application of the directive — Lawfulness of a national system of liability permitting compensation to be obtained for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose — Damage to a hospital generator due to the fact that an alternator overheated.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted to mean that it does not preclude the interpretation of domestic law or the application of settled domestic case-law according to which an injured person can seek compensation for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose, where that injured person simply proves the damage, the defect in the product and the causal link between that defect and the damage.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T-523/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/44

         Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
   (Case T-523/09)
   2010/C 51/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2;

               —

               In the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2, to state that the Community trade mark concerned possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ for goods in class 9

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned was not eligible for registration due to the fact that it is purportedly devoid of any distinctive character.


title: Joined Cases C-568/14 to C-570/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — ‘Floor’ clause — Collective proceedings — Individual action with the same subject matter — Interim relief)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14)
   (Joined Cases C-568/14 to C-570/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Collective proceedings - Individual action with the same subject matter - Interim relief))
   (2017/C 063/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ismael Fernández Oliva (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales (C-570/14)

      Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14)

      Operative part of the order

   Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit a court seised of an individual action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a term of a contract binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair to adopt interim relief of its own motion, for as long as it considers appropriate, pending a final judgment in an ongoing collective action, the outcome of which may be applied to the individual action, when such relief is necessary in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed by the consumer under Directive 93/13.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-451/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2011 — Natthaya Dülger v District of Wetterau

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2011 — Natthaya Dülger v District of Wetterau
   (Case C-451/11)
   2011/C 347/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Natthaya Dülger

      Defendant: District of Wetterau

      Question referred

   May a Thai national, who was married to a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and who, after receiving authorisation to join him, lived with him without interruption for more than three years, rely on the rights arising from the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, with the consequence that she has a right of residence because of the direct effect of that provision?


title: Case T-359/10: Action brought on 25 August 2010 — Ecologistas en Acción — CODA v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/57

      Action brought on 25 August 2010 — Ecologistas en Acción — CODA v Commission
      (Case T-359/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/105)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción — CODA (represented by: J. Ramos Segarra, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decision of 30 June 2010 of the Secretariat General of the European Commission refusing access to the documents requested by the applicant in the proceedings GESTDEM 2010/957 and declare that the applicant is entitled to receive the information requested:

                              —

                              letter of 7 January 2010 from the Servicio de Asesoramiento Urbanístico del Ajuntament de Valencia;

                              —

                              communication of 17 January 2010 by the Spanish authorities regarding EU-PILOT 724/09/2ENVI;

                              —

                              letter of 21 January 2010 from the Generalität Valenciana — Directorate General for Environmental Management;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant association challenges the decision refusing its request for access to certain documents submitted by Spain in the investigation concerning EU-PILOT-ENVI 72409, which is intended to implement the Special Protection and Internal Reform Plan (PEPRI) for the district of Cabanyal in the City of Valencia, approved by the Ayuntamiento de Valencia and the Generalidad de Valencia.
      In support of its forms of order the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. (1)

      The applicant states in that regard that, contrary to the Commission’s submissions, there are no domestic legal proceedings clearly connected to the procedure initiated by the Commission. The legal proceedings to which the defendant refers concern non-compliance with domestic laws which do not in any way regulate the environment or refer to the environmental impact assessment.
      Further, the applicant takes the view that, in any event, the disclosure of the information requested cannot prejudice the environmental protection to which that information refers.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


title: Case C-59/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Nancy — France) — Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS (Agriculture — Directives 98/95/EC, 2002/53/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2009/145/EC — Validity — Vegetables — Sale on the national seed market of vegetable seed not included in the official common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Non-compliance with system of prior authorisation for marketing — International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture — Principle of proportionality — Freedom to conduct a business — Free movement of goods — Equal treatment)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Nancy — France) — Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS
   (Case C-59/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Directives 98/95/EC, 2002/53/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2009/145/EC - Validity - Vegetables - Sale on the national seed market of vegetable seed not included in the official common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species - Non-compliance with system of prior authorisation for marketing - International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture - Principle of proportionality - Freedom to conduct a business - Free movement of goods - Equal treatment)
   2012/C 287/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Nancy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association Kokopelli

      Defendant: Graines Baumaux SAS

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Nancy — Validity, in the light of inter alia the principles of proportionality, equal treatment, free movement of goods and undertakings under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 1999 L 25, p. 1), Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1), Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 33) and Commission Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties (OJ 1999 L 312, p. 44) — Sale on the national market of vegetable seed not included in the official common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Non-compliance with national scheme of prior marketing authorisation, deemed to be too restrictive — Acts of unfair competition or infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and free movement of goods

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed, and of Commission Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case T-671/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014  — Bayerische Motoren Werke v Commission

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/30

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Bayerische Motoren Werke v Commission
   (Case T-671/14)
   (2014/C 439/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Rosenthal, G. Drauz and M. Schütte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of 9 July 2014 in case SA.32009 (2011/C) in so far as it declares the amount by which the aid claimed of EUR 4 5 2 57  273 exceeds EUR 17 million (EUR 2 8 2 57  273) to be incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative: annul, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of 9 July 2014 in case SA.32009 (2011/C) in so far as it declares the amount of EUR 22,5 million which is exempt from notification in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (1) to be incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that, by infringing its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and thereby subsequently affirming, in a manifestly erroneous manner, the applicability in full of the communication on the detailed examination of large investment projects, the defendant infringed Article 108(3) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that, if the applicant’s market position had been correctly assessed, a detailed examination should not have occurred. The carrying out of the detailed examination without prior determination of the market position and the resulting discriminatory treatment of the applicant constituted a manifest error of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant also argues that, by limiting, in a manifestly erroneous manner, the incentive effect and proportionality of the aid to the ex-ante estimated EUR 17 million amount of differential costs between the locations of Munich and Leipzig, the defendant infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

                           —

                           In this respect, the applicant states that the automatic nature of the detailed examination by the defendant, determined by that amount of differential costs, constitutes a manifest error of assessment which ultimately prevented a proper exercise of discretion, in particular when examining the proportionality and effects of the aid.

               3.

               Alternative plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Regulation No 800/2008

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in the alternative, that, by prohibiting, in a manifestly erroneous manner, the Federal Republic of Germany from granting the applicant aid from the approved aid scheme of the Investitionszulagengesetz (Law on investment subsidies) in an amount which is below the notification threshold of EUR 22,5 million, the defendant infringed Article 108(3) TFEU and Regulation No 800/2008.

                           —

                           In the applicant’s opinion, that limitation of the amount of the aid below the notification threshold constitutes a manifest error of assessment by which the defendant exceeded its powers and unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in comparison with aid beneficiaries which received the non-notifiable amount of EUR 22,5 million.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).


title: Case T-124/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM — MetroRED Telecom (MetroRED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM — MetroRED Telecom (MetroRED)
   (Case T-124/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   (2007/C 82/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MetroRED Telecom Group Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 (Case R 266/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and MetroRED Telecom Group Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case F-28/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Request to remove a sentence from a medical report — Accident or occupational disease — Implied rejection of the request)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-28/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Request to remove a sentence from a medical report - Accident or occupational disease - Implied rejection of the request)
   2013/C 252/93
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to remove a sentence from the medical report of 28 February 2008, to send a new report thus amended to the doctor chosen by the applicant and also in general remove from the file on the applicant’s work-related injury any information relating the claim, which the applicant maintains is incorrect, that the powder with which the applicant came into contact was ultimately shown to be the white dust of a copy of a newspaper to which the applicant subscribed.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012, p. 31.


title: Case C-563/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Granada (Spain) lodged on 18 December 2008 — Carlos Sáez Sánchez and Patricia Rueda Vargas v Junta de Andalucía and Manuel Jalón Morente and Others, co-defendants

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Granada (Spain) lodged on 18 December 2008 — Carlos Sáez Sánchez and Patricia Rueda Vargas v Junta de Andalucía and Manuel Jalón Morente and Others, co-defendants
   (Case C-563/08)
   (2009/C 69/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Granada
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Carlos Sáez Sánchez and Patricia Rueda Vargas

      Defendants: Junta de Andalucía and Manuel Jalón Morente and Others
   Question referred
   Are Articles 2.3 and 2.4 of State Law 16/1997 of 25 April on pharmaceutical services, in so far as they define territorial and demographic limits on the opening of pharmacies, contrary to Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, in that they constitute a disproportionate, even counterproductive, system for limiting the number of pharmacies, in terms of the objective of the proper provision of medicines in the relevant territory?


title: Case C-195/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (Patents Court) (England and Wales) made on 29 May 2009 — Synthon BV v Merz Pharma Gmbh & Co KG

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (Patents Court) (England and Wales) made on 29 May 2009 — Synthon BV v Merz Pharma Gmbh & Co KG
   (Case C-195/09)
   2009/C 193/10
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Synthon BV

      Defendant: Merz Pharma Gmbh & Co KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Articles 13 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1768/92 (1), is an authorisation a ‘first authorization to place. on the market in the Community’, if it is granted in pursuance of a national law which is compliant with Council Directive 65/65/EEC (2), or is it necessary that it be established in addition that, in granting the authorisation in question, the national authority followed an assessment of data as required by the administrative procedure laid down in that Directive?

               2.

               For the purposes of Articles 13 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1768/92, does the expression ‘first authorization to place. on the market in the Community’, include authorisations which had been permitted by national law to co-exist with an authorisation regime which complies with Council Directive 65/65/EEC?

               3.

               Is a product which is authorised to be placed on the market for the first time in the EEC without going through the administrative procedure laid down in Council Directive 65/65/EEC within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) 1768/92 as defined by Article 2?

               4.

               If not, is an SPC granted in respect of such a product invalid?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products OJ L 182, p. 1

      (2)  Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products OJ 22, p. 369 English special edition: Series I Chapter 1965-1966 p. 24


title: Case T-351/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Schneider Electric v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Loss sustained by an undertaking as a result of a sufficiently serious breach of Community law vitiating the control procedure relating to a merger's compatibility with the common market)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Schneider Electric v Commission
   (Case T-351/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Loss sustained by an undertaking as a result of a sufficiently serious breach of Community law vitiating the control procedure relating to a merger's compatibility with the common market)
   (2007/C 199/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Schneider Electric SA (Rueil-Malmaison — France) (represented by: A. Winckler and M. Pittie, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by P. Oliver, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Ingen-Housz, and subsequently by P. Oliver, O. Beynet and R. Lyal, then by P. Oliver, R. Lyal and F. Arbault, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)
   Re:
   Action seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of illegality vitiating the control procedure relating to compatibility with the common market of the merger between Schneider Electric SA and Legrand SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Community to make good, first, the expenses incurred by Schneider Electric SA in respect of its participation in the resumed merger control procedure which followed delivery of the judgments of the Court of First Instance on 22 October 2002 in Cases T-310/01 and T-77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission and, second, two thirds of the loss sustained by Schneider Electric as a result of the reduction in the price of divestiture of Legrand SA which Schneider Electric had to concede to the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective date of sale of Legrand until 10 December 2002;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the parties to communicate to the Court, within the period of three months from 11 July 2007, the amount representing the first head of loss, jointly agreed in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 320 of this judgment;

               4.

               Failing such agreement, orders the parties to submit to the Court, within the same period, their proposed figures;

               5.

               Orders that the amount of the second head of loss of Schneider Electric referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assessed by an expert;

               6.

               Invites Schneider Electric and the Commission to nominate the expert or to propose to the Court a list of experts so that one may be appointed by the Court from that list;

               7.

               Instructs the Registrar of the Court to transmit to the expert for the purposes of his examination a certified copy of Annexes 8 and 29 to the application;

               8.

               Declares that the expert shall be invited to submit his report within a period of time to be determined;

               9.

               Instructs the Registrar of the Court to serve the report on the parties;

               10.

               Declares that the compensation shall be re-assessed and increased to take account of interest in accordance with the criteria defined in paragraphs 345 and 346 of this judgement;

               11.

               Reserves the decision on costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-401/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge
      (Case C-401/14)
      (2015/C 016/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Namur

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bernard Leloup

         Defendant: État belge
      By order of 11 November 2014, the Court ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-282/08: Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/36

         Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-282/08)
   (2008/C 209/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Roels and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under this directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/29/EC expired on 12 June 2007. However, at the date the present action was brought, the defendant had still not taken the necessary measures to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case T-846/14: Action brought on 29 December 2014  — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKEY)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/52

         Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKEY)
   (Case T-846/14)
   (2015/C 065/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Spokey sp. z o.o. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leder Jaeger GmbH (Siegen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SPOKEY’ — Community trade mark No 6 777 312

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 525/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               if necessary, amend the contested decision insofar as it refers to specific goods within Class 18;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of rule 50 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-316/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July 2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundeskanzler

text:
C 303/8               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.10.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                3.   Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                      be held to affect trade between Member States only if it
court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd,                  has, or is capable of having, an appreciable effect on trade
2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics                      between Member States? If so, what are the criteria for
Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd,                         determining whether or not a measure has such an effect?
5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc
      against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                        4.   Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
                                                                             be held to affect trade between Member States if as a
                                                                             result of that aid (1) traders in one Member State reduce
                                                                             the volumes of the goods they import from other Member
                        (Case C-308/01)                                      States; or (2) a trader who rents domestic appliances to
                                                                             customers in one Member State has a number of its rental
                                                                             contracts discontinued and disposes of those appliances
                                                                             in another Member State; or (3) insurance companies in
                                                                             one Member State, which provide insurance connected
                        (2001/C 303/12)                                      with the sales of domestic appliances, are placed at a
                                                                             competitive disadvantage with companies which sell
                                                                             direct insurance some of which are subsidiaries of
                                                                             companies in other Member States?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               5.   If, in the light of the answers to Questions 3 and 4, the
Tribunals of 24 July 2001, which was received at the Court                   higher rate of insurance premium tax constitutes a state
Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the                   aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, is Article 88
case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd,                EC to be interpreted so that, where the Commission is
3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct                     not informed of any plans to grant such aid, the legislative
Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle                   measures introducing the aid should be dis-applied and
Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise,                   any tax paid under those measures should be repaid?
on the following questions:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive 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
     (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted so that the prior
     authorisation of the Council was required before the
     introduction of a higher rate of tax on insurance pre-
     miums, which tax was designed to nullify the exemption
     for insurance services in Article 13 of the Directive; which
     was at a rate identical to the standard rate of value added        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
     tax; which was administered in the same way as value               Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July
     added tax; which was intended with value added tax to              2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundes-
     form part of an inseparable whole; and where there was                                           kanzler
     no tax evasion or tax avoidance?
                                                                                (Case C-316/01)
2.   Is Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
     1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                                        (2001/C 303/13)
     States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
     (77/388/EEC) to be interpreted so as to prevent a Member           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State from introducing a tax on insurance premiums                 European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
     which is calculated by reference to the services supplied;         tungssenat Wien (Independent Administrative Chamber, Vien-
     which is proportional to the price of the services supplied;       na) of 25 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on
     which is charged at the final stage of sale to the consumer;       13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Eva
     which is passed on to the final consumer in a manner               Glawischnig v Bundeskanzler on the following questions:
     characteristic of value added tax so that the burden of tax
     rests on the final consumer; which applies to the whole
     territory of the United kingdom; but which does not                1.   Can the name of the manufacturer of foodstuffs and their
     apply generally to all transactions relating to goods and               product description, in respect of which a complaint has
     services?                                                               been made in the context of the monitoring by the
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 303/9
      administrative authorities of instances of incorrect label-      2.    Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
      ling, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 (1)               Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
      of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication                    of the Association between the European Economic
      of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from                   Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers
      genetically modified organisms of particulars other than               employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers
      those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC (2), constitute             engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through
      ‘information relating to the environment’ within the                   a Member State of the Community without belonging to
      meaning of Article 2(a) of Council Directive                           the legitimate labour force of that Member State?
      90/313/EEC (3) of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access
      to information on the environment?
                                                                       3.    Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
2.    Does information contained in administrative documents                 ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
      revealing the frequency with which administrative penal-               between the European Economic Community and Turkey
      ties have been imposed for infringement of Regulation                  to be interpreted as meaning that
      (EC) No 1139/98 constitute ‘information relating to the
      environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of                     (a)   a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction on
      Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                           the freedom to provide services which is contrary to
      freedom of access to information on the environment?                         the Additional Protocol and, if so, that
3.    Does information contained in administrative documents
      revealing the manufacturers and products to which                      (b) a new restriction on the freedom to provide services
      administrative penalties for infringement of Regulation                      also exists where a Member State of the Community,
      (EC) No 1139/98 relate constitute ‘information relating                      from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,
      to the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of                    restricts the access of Turkish workers to the
      Council Directive 90/131/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                           employment market and thereby impedes the free-
      freedom of access to information on the environment?                         dom to provide services of businessmen employing
                                                                                the workers?
(1) OJ 1998 L 159, p. 4.
(2) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
gericht by order of that court of 20 June 2001 in the case
                                                                       Tributaria Provinciale di Roma by order of that court of
of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer and
                                                                       27 February 2001 in the case of Informatica e Telecomu-
          4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                                                                       nicazioni I & T SpA against Direzione Regionale delle
                                                                                Entrate per il Lazio
                         (Case C-317/01)
                         (2001/C 303/14)                                                        (Case C-318/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                                        (2001/C 303/15)
(Federal Social Court) of 20 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and 4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour          European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
Office) on the following questions:                                    ria Provinciale di Roma of 27 February 2001, which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 14 August 2001, for a
1.    Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association             preliminary ruling in the case of Informatica e Telecomunica-
      Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                  zioni I & T SpA against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per
      of the Association between the European Economic                 il Lazio on the following question:
      Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting
      a Member State of the Community from introducing
      national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-           Is a legislative measure imposing a charge on the net assets of
      ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down            a company having effects equivalent to an indirect charge on
      new restrictions on access to the employment market for          transfers compatible with Community law and in particular
      Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on            with Directive 69/335/EEC?
      introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
      No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first
      legally resident and employed?


title: Case T-584/10: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 –Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO — Earlier national and international word marks MATADOR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 –Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)
   (Case T-584/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO - Earlier national and international word marks MATADOR - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 355/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mustafa Yilmaz (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented: initially by F. Kuschmirek, and subsequently by F. Stangl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV (Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico) (represented by: S. Salvetti, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 October 2010 (Case R 1162/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Mustafa Yilmaz and Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Holds that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 October 2010 (Case R 1162/2009-2) in so far as it accepted registration of the mark applied for in respect of ‘alcoholic beverages’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Mustafa Yilmaz to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM and by Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.