title: Case C-547/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2014 — Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited against Secretary of State for Health

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2014 — Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited against Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-547/14)
   (2015/C 056/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

      Other parties: Imperial Tobacco Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited, JT International SA, Gallaher Limited, Tann UK Limited and Tannpapier GmbH, V. Mane Fils, Deutsche Benkert GmbH & Co. KG and Benkert UK Limited, Joh. Wilh. Von Eicken GmbH

      Questions referred

   The following questions relating to Directive 2014/40/EU (1) (the ‘Directive’ or ‘TPD2’) are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘CJEU’ or the ‘Court’) for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU:

      Legal basis

               1.

               Is the Directive invalid in whole or in part because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis? In particular:

                           (a)

                           In relation to Article 24(2) of the Directive:

                                       (i)

                                       on its proper interpretation, to what extent does it permit Member States to adopt more stringent rules in relation to matters relating to the ‘standardisation’ of the packaging of tobacco products; and,

                                       (ii)

                                       in light of that interpretation, is Article 24(2) invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis?

                           (b)

                           Is Article 24(3) TPD2, which allows Member States to prohibit a category of tobacco or related products in specified circumstances, invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis?

                           (c)

                           Are the following provisions invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis:

                                       (i)

                                       the provisions of Chapter II of Title II TPD2, which relate to packaging and labelling;

                                       (ii)

                                       Article 7 TPD2, insofar as it prohibits menthol cigarettes and tobacco products with a characterising flavour;

                                       (iii)

                                       Article 18 TPD2, which allows Member States to prohibit cross-border distance sales of tobacco products; and,

                                       (iv)

                                       Articles 3(4) and 4(5) TPD2, which delegate powers to the Commission in relation to emission levels?

      Proportionality and Fundamental Rights

               2.

               In relation to Article 13 TPD2:

                           (a)

                           on its true interpretation, does it prohibit true and non-misleading statements about tobacco products on the product packaging; and,

                           (b)

                           if so, is it invalid because it violates the principle of proportionality and/or Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

               3.

               Are any or all of the following provisions of TPD2 invalid because they infringe the principle of proportionality:

                           (a)

                           Articles 7(1) and 7(7), insofar as they prohibit the placing on the market of tobacco products with menthol as a characterising flavour and the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components;

                           (b)

                           Articles 8(3), 9(3), 10(l)(g) and 14, insofar as they impose various pack standardisation requirements; and,

                           (c)

                           Articles 10(l)(a) and (c), insofar as they require health warnings to cover 65 % of the external front and back surface of the unit packaging and any outside packaging?

      Delegation/Implementation

               4.

               Are any or all of the following provisions of TPD2 invalid because they infringe Article 290 TFEU:

                           (a)

                           Articles 3(2) and 3(4) concerning maximum emission levels;

                           (b)

                           Article 4(5) relating to measurement methods for emissions;

                           (c)

                           Articles 7(5), 7(11) and 7(12) concerning the regulation of ingredients;

                           (d)

                           Articles 9(5), 10(l)(f), 10(3), 11(6), 12(3) and 20(12) concerning health warnings;

                           (e)

                           Article 20(11) concerning the prohibition of electronic cigarettes and/or refill containers; and/or,

                           (f)

                           Article 15(12) concerning data storage contracts?

               5.

               Are Articles 3(4) and 4(5) TPD2 invalid because they breach the principle of legal certainty and/or impermissibly delegate powers to external bodies that are not subject to the procedural safeguards required by EU law?

               6.

               Are any or all of the following provisions of TPD2 invalid because they infringe Article 291 TFEU:

                           (a)

                           Article 6(1) concerning reporting obligations;

                           (b)

                           Article 7(2)-7(4) and 7(10) concerning implementing acts relating to the prohibition of tobacco products in certain circumstances; and/or,

                           (c)

                           Articles 9(6) and 10(4) concerning health warnings?

      Subsidiarity

               7.

               Is TPD2 and in particular Articles 7, 8(3), 9(3), 10(l)(g), 13 and 14 invalid for failure to comply with the principle of subsidiarity?

      (1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ L 127, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 December 2012 in Case E-2/12 — HOB-vín ehf. v The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR) (Free movement of goods — Directive 2000/13/EC — Product coverage — Labelling of foodstuffs — Misleading labelling — Lack of notification to ESA of a national measure — Justification — State liability)

text:
               25.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/33

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 11 December 2012
   in Case E-2/12
   HOB-vín ehf. v The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR)
   (Free movement of goods — Directive 2000/13/EC — Product coverage — Labelling of foodstuffs — Misleading labelling — Lack of notification to ESA of a national measure — Justification — State liability)
   2013/C 118/09
   In Case E-2/12, HOB-vín ehf. v The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) on the compatibility with the EEA Agreement of national rules under which a State monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol may refuse, under certain conditions, to accept for sale alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 11 December 2012, the operative part of which is as follows.

               1.

               Article 18 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs precludes a rule such as Article 5.10 of the product selection rules, by which ÁTVR rejects the sale of alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State on the grounds that the labelling of the products contains loaded or unrelated information.
               It is of no significance whether the product selection rules apply equally to domestic and foreign products.

               2.

               A national rule such as Article 8 of the Icelandic Regulation No 828/2005 on the commercial production, import and wholesale of alcohol, which requires that it be stated on packages of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol, other than by indication of the actual alcoholic strength by volume, that their contents are alcoholic, cannot be considered effective and cannot be allowed to impose burdens on individuals and economic operators if it has been adopted without regard to the procedure laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC.

               3.

               Individuals and economic operators who have been harmed by the incorrect application of Directive 2000/13/EC may rely on the free movement of goods in order to be able to render the State liable for the breach of EEA law.
               Damage caused by a national measure such as that described in the first question entails State liability if the national court finds that the application of the national legislation or administrative regulation constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of EEA law and there is a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.
               A breach of EEA law is sufficiently serious where damage is caused by a national measure such as that described in the second question if the national legislation or administrative regulation cannot be considered effective due to a failure to notify it pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC. Such a breach entails State liability if the national court finds a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.


title: Case F-22/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Hall v Commission and CEPOL (Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Education allowance — Children of applicant’s wife not living at the home of the couple — Conditions for granting)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Hall v Commission and CEPOL
   (Case F-22/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Education allowance - Children of applicant’s wife not living at the home of the couple - Conditions for granting)
   2014/C 39/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mark Hall (Petersfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents) and European Police College (CEPOL) (represented by: F. Bánfi, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s request for the grant of dependent child and education allowances in respect of his wife’s three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible, in so far as it is directed against the European Police College;

               2.

               Annuls the implied decision of 25 March 2011 and the express decision of 11 July 2011 of the European Commission rejecting the application for dependent child and education allowances for the three children of Mr Hall’s wife, for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action brought against the European Commission;

               4.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Hall;

               5.

               Orders Mr Hall to pay the costs incurred by the European Police College.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 35.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-222/03 P Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed — Plan to build a centre for the storage, packaging and marketing of olive oil — Principle of proportionality — Force majeure — Rights of the defence)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/4

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-222/03 P Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - EAGGF - Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed - Plan to build a centre for the storage, packaging and marketing of olive oil - Principle of proportionality - Force majeure - Rights of the defence)
   (2005/C 93/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-222/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 21 May 2003, Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL), Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), (lawyers: E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini and A. Bandini), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 16 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali and Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli shall pay the costs of this appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003


title: Case T-290/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/21

         Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-290/06)
   (2006/C 310/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato di Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Memorandum No 06863 of 27 July 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme POR Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 009)

               —

               annul Memorandum No 07231 of 3 August 2003 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. DOCUP Toscana Ob. 2 (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 001)

               —

               annul Memorandum No 07248 of 3 August 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning certification and the intermediate statement of expenses and the claim for payment. Ref. DOCUP Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 005)

               —

               annul Memorandum No 07473 of 10 August 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. PON Sviluppo Imprenditoriale Locale 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 002)

               —

               annul Memorandum No 07755 of 22 August 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. POR Campania 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 007)

               —

               annul Memorandum No 07768 of 23 August 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. POR Campania 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 007)

               —

               annul Memorandum No 08861 of 20 September 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. POR Programme Sardinia 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 010)

               —

               annul all related and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1)

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano in Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) v Regione Lombardia and Others, and in Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura and Others (Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Regulations (EEC) No 856/84 and No 3950/92 — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Administrative penalties — Conditions)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 21 June 2005
   in Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano in Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) v Regione Lombardia and Others, and in Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura and Others (1)

   (Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) No 856/84 and No 3950/92 - Reference quantity - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Administrative penalties - Conditions)
   (2005/C 217/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) (C-162/03), made by decision of 21 February 2003, received at the Court on 7 April 2003, from the Tribunale di Tolmezzo (Italy) (C-185/03, C-271/04 and C-272/04), made by decisions of 16 April 2003 and 16 June 2004, received at the Court on 5 May 2003 and 25 June 2004 respectively, and from the Tribunale di Gorizia (Italy) (C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04 and C-224/04), made by decisions of 18 December 2003 and 7 April 2004, received at the Court on 4 February 2004 and 28 May 2004 respectively, in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) (C-162/03) against Regione Lombardia, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), and in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa (C-185/03), Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto e Andrea (C-44/04 and C-224/04), Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo (C-45/04 and C-223/04), Azienda Agricola Di Doi Elena (C-271/04) and Azienda Agricola Piemonte Franco (C-272/04) against Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat FVG — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 21 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The additional levy established in respect of the milk and milk products sector by Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984, and by Articles 1 to 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, is not an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003

      OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003

      OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004

      OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004

      OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.


C 247/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26.8.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-417/98 P (1)
                         (2000/C 247/43)                                                     (2000/C 247/47)
By order of 4 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-405/99: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-417/98 P: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                    Communities v Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH Kai Interporc Im- und Export GmbH.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-426/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-156/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/48)
By order of 6 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-426/99 (reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Düsseldorf): Connaught            the register of Case C-156/99: Commission of the European
Laboratories Inc. v SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and               Communities v French Republic.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing SA.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-355/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-168/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/45)                                                     (2000/C 247/49)
By order of 7 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 11 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
the register of Case C-355/99: Commission of the European            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-168/99:
Communities v Ireland.                                               Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-412/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/46)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-229/99 (1)
By order of 18 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 247/50)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-412/99: Commission of the European            By order of 15 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-229/99:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                            Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case C-296/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2016 by Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/14

         Appeal brought on 25 May 2016 by Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

   (Case C-296/16 P)
   (2016/C 287/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15.
               Should the appeal be declared to be well-founded, the appellant claims that the Court should uphold, in its entirety, the form of order sought at first instance, namely:

                           1.

                           annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 (1) of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health;

                           2.

                           order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the appellant criticises the General Court’s standard of review for being incorrect.
   By assessing that, in the case of ‘highly complex scientific and technical facts’, the exercise of discretion by the defendant is subject merely to a control of fairness, the General Court from the outset dispensed with a large area of discretionary assessment which must, however, in actual fact be appreciated by the General Court and the Court of Justice. The General Court and the Court of Justice are not restricted to merely controlling the fairness of the defendant’s exercise of discretion. On the contrary, a judicial review can and must be carried out as to whether the defendant correctly interpreted the requirements set out by the European legislator in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and thereby correctly exercised its discretion. In judicial examinations, every form of misuse of discretion must also be examined. That did not occur due to the erroneous weighting and evaluation of the ‘other legitimate factors relevant to the issue under consideration’.
   In addition, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in doing so relies on three pleas in law:
   First, the non-admission of the health-related information at issue is based on errors of assessment made by the defendant. That results first of all from the hierarchy of the relevant legitimate factors provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Not every consideration of a legitimate and relevant factor may also justify a non-admission of factually correct and scientifically sufficiently secured health-related information. According to the appellant, pursuant to recital 17 in the preamble to the regulation, that information cannot be the ‘main aspect’ for the decision to grant authorisation. ‘Scientific substantiation’ should be ‘taken into account’ as the ‘main aspect’ in health-related information. That weighting was also reflected in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. The authority’s view is mentioned there in first place.
   Secondly, the defendant also incorrectly exercised its discretion under Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 because it wrongly assumed that the applicant’s information could send a ‘conflicting and confusing message to consumers’. A reference to proven effects of glucose neither means that sugar should be consumed or consumed to an increased extent, nor that there are any third party recommendations to reduce sugar consumption. A contradiction cannot therefore be in discussion — this is particularly the case in so far as the healthy, active and endurance-trained men and women specifically named in the form of order are at issue.
   Thirdly, a further error of assessment committed by the defendant in the context of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 arises out of the fact that it wrongly assumed that the applicant’s information is ambiguous and misleading. In order to mislead a prudent average consumer, the applicant’s health-related information would have to be suited for deception. Precisely that is not the case.
   In addition, the appellant alleges an infringement of the principle of proportionality:
   The defendant’s non-admission of the applicant’s health-related information infringes the principle of proportionality. As an organ of the European Union, when exercising discretion, the defendant is bound by the principle of proportionality within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 5(4) TEU. If generally recognised nutritional and health principles constitute the only reason for the non-admission of the applicant’s health-related information, without the specific circumstances of the individual case being sufficiently observed, an infringement of the principle of proportionality lies therein. This is because general principles would not necessitate any rejection of the applicant’s form of order in the particular case, but would at best prompt specific conditions for use and labelling rules as a less restrictive measure. In addition, even from a nutritional and health point of view, an unconditional blanket ban brought about by the non-admission of the factually correct and scientifically sufficiently secured health-related information is not an appropriate measure to attain a high level of consumer protection.
   Finally, the appellant alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment:
   The non-admission of the health-related information applied for also manifestly infringes the principle of equal treatment. The defendant treats the admissions in comparable cases differently although there are no objective reasons for unequal treatment.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6.


title: Case C-300/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte v Ibero Tours GmbH (Value-added tax — Operations of travel agents — Granting of price discounts to customers — Determination of the taxable amount for services provided as part of an intermediary activity)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte v Ibero Tours GmbH
   (Case C-300/12) (1)

   (Value-added tax - Operations of travel agents - Granting of price discounts to customers - Determination of the taxable amount for services provided as part of an intermediary activity)
   2014/C 85/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte

      Defendant: Ibero Tours GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 11(C)(1) and Article 26 of Directive 77/388/EEC: 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 (OJ L 145, p. 1) — Operations of travel agents — Granting of price discounts to customers resulting in a reduction of the travel agent’s commission — Determination of the taxable amount for the intermediary service.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-317/94 Elida Gibbs [1996] ECR I-5339 concerning the determination of the taxable amount for VAT purposes do not apply when a travel agent, acting as an intermediary, grants to the final consumer, on the travel agent’s own initiative and at his own expense, a price reduction on the principal service provided by the tour operator.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura circondariale di Roma - Sezione distaccata di Tivoli by order of that court of 8 November 1995 in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi (Case C-363/95)

text:
No C 16/8             | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                 failed to give any consideration at all to one of the
those of Case C-360/95 (2 ). The time limit for transposition          appellants' claims.
expired on 31 December 1993 .
                                                                       In particular, in relation to the matters of fact found by the
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 11 . 8 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            Court of First Instance in its judgment, the appellants'
( 2 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal .                            appeal is based on the errors of law committed by the Court
                                                                       of First Instance in that connection — the obvious
                                                                       substantive inaccuracy of findings, the misuse of evidence,
                                                                       the failure to apply properly the rules and principles relating
                                                                       to the burden of proof.
Appeal brought on 27 November 1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur
DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald       The appellants contend that underlying the Court of First
Cohen against the judgment delivered on 18 September                   Instance's judgment was a basic error ( or series of errors ) of
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the              law concerning the correct legal test of causation.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-168/94 (') between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, (2 )                H OJ No C 286, p . 13 .
Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the
                      European Communities
                         ( Case C-362/95 P                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                             ( 96/C 16/16                              circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                       order of that court of 8 November 1995 in criminal
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                          proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the                                       Case C-363/95 )
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                                             ( 96/C 16/17)
Case T-168/94 between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven
Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, ( 4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the                 European Communities by order of the Pretura
European Communities, was brought before the Court of                  circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
Justice of the European Communities on 27 November                     District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 8 November
1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M.      1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen, represented by K. P. E. Lasok,           27 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal
QC, instructed by Charles Khan of Berg & Co., Solicitors,              proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi .
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Maria Dennewald, 12, avenue de la Porte Neuve .                     The questions referred by the Pretura circondariale di Roma
                                                                       — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a
The appellants request the Court to order that:                        preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case
                                                                       C-58/95 ( M.
( a ) the decision of the Court of First Instance be set
       aside;                                                          (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
( b ) the case be remitted to the Court of First Instance;
        and
(c ) the Council and the Commission pay the Appellants'                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
       costs .
                                                                       Hamburg by orders of 22 September 1995 and
                                                                       27 September 1995 in the cases of Firma T. Port GmbH &
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
The appellants submit that the judgment of the Court of                               ( Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 )
First Instance is vitiated by errors of law. These errors of law                                   ( 96/C 16/18 )
comprise infringement of the Appellants' right to a fair trial,
as understood in the context of Article 6 of the Convention
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                     European Communities by orders of the Joint Senate of the
Freedoms, the rights of defence and general principles of              Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) for
 Community law.                                                        the Länder of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg,
The appellants did not benefit from a fair trial for various           Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of
 reasons : the Court of First Instance's judgment is riddled           22 September and 27 September 1995 , which were received
with suggestio falsi and suppressio veri in relation both to           at the Court Registry on 16 November 1995 , for a
 the nature of the appellants' case and the evidence and               preliminary ruling in the case of Firma T. Port GmbH
 sources of evidence available to the Court of First Instance;          & Co. v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office )
 the Court of First Instance misused the evidence before it            Hamburg-Jonas on the first, second and third questions in
 and refrained from ordering measures of enquiry even                   Case C- 1 82/95 ( M.
 though it was appropriate to do so; the Court of First
                                                                        0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 12 .
 Instance failed to give any or any sufficient reasons for a
 number of its conclusions; and the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-292/09: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Mugraby v Council and Commission (Action for failure to act — Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon — Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon — Manifest inadmissibility — Actions for damages — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/20

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Mugraby v Council and Commission
   (Case T-292/09) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon - Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon - Manifest inadmissibility - Actions for damages - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2011/C 319/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Muhamad Mugraby (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: J. Regouw and L. Spigt, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, B. Driessen and E. Finnegan, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and S. Boelaert, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully omitted to take a decision on the applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against the Republic of Lebanon on account of the alleged violation by the latter of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement concluded between European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon of the other part, and an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result those institutions’ failure to act.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Muhamad Mugraby is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Elmeka NE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 15(4)(a), (5) and (8) — Exemption for the chartering of sea-going vessels — Scope)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Elmeka NE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   (Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(4)(a), (5) and (8) - Exemption for the chartering of sea-going vessels - Scope)
   (2006/C 281/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elmeka NE

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 15(4), (5) and (8) 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) — Exemptions — Exemption for the chartering of sea-going vessels — Scope
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby rules:

               1.

               Article 15(4)(a) 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, to which Article 15(5) of that directive refers, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, applies not only to vessels used on the high seas for the carriage of passengers for reward, but also to vessels used on the high seas for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activity.

               2.

               Article 15(8) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for therein applies to the supply of services directly to the shipowner for the direct needs of sea-going vessels.

               3.

               In the framework of the common system of value added tax, national tax authorities are obliged to respect the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. It falls to the referring court to decide whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the taxable person could reasonably have believed that the decision in question had been taken by a competent authority.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26. 6. 2004.

      OJ C 201, 07. 8. 2004.


title: Case T-165/04: Action brought on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/13

         Action brought on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-165/04)
   (2004/C 179/26)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision establishing his career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests, on formal and substantive grounds, his career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims, he asserts:

               —

               infringement of Article 2 of the General Provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant states in that regard that the review in question was established by a person lacking the power to do so;

               —

               the existence, in this case, of a manifest error of assessment, and inconsistency between the comments and the marks awarded;

               —

               infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant asserts on that point that the overall mark awarded him places him below the average, despite the fact that his previous reviews were good, without any explanation for the deterioration.


               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/1

         Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of Justice
   (2006/C 143/01)
   Following his appointment as Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 6 April 2006 (1), Mr Paolo Mengozzi took the oath before the Court on 3 May 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 104 of 13 April 2006, p. 36


title: Case T-434/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Tono v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Tono v Commission
   (Case T-434/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tono (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: S. Teigum and A. Ringnes, lawyers)

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

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

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

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in the main proceedings;

               4.

               Orders Tono and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-391/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/53/EC — Article 2(3) — Protection of the environment — End-of-life vehicles — Notion of producer)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-391/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - Article 2(3) - Protection of the environment - End-of-life vehicles - Notion of producer)
   2012/C 366/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and T. Materne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure by a Member State to failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34) — Notion of ‘vehicle’ and ‘producer’ — Free-of-charge delivery of end-of-life vehicles subject to conditions not provided for by the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-68/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission
   (Case T-68/06)
   (2006/C 96/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: Stempher B.V. (Rijssen, Netherlands) and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher C.V. (represented by: J.K. de Pree, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(2), 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005, as amended by the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags — C(2005) 4634 final), or at least in so far as those provisions find that Stempher breached Article 81 EC, in so far as a fine is imposed on Stempher in that regard, in so far as Stempher is enjoined to bring that breach to an end and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in Article 1, and any act or conduct having an identical or similar object or effect, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to Stempher;

               —

               order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging the Commission decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).
   In support of their action, the applicants submit that the decision is at variance with Article 81 EC and with Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) by reason of the fact that there was inadequate evidence to justify a finding that the applicants had acted in breach of Article 81 EC.
   The applicants submit further that the decision is contrary to Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 and to Regulation No 2988/74 (2), which was previously in force, on the ground that the authority to pursue the alleged breach has become time-barred.
   In the alternative, the applicants submit that Article 2 of the contested decision is at variance with Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the guidelines relating to fines (3). The severity of the breach of which the applicants were accused was incorrectly appraised and was wrongly classified as being very serious. Furthermore, the applicants allege, inaccurate matters and information were taken into account in setting the fine. This, they submit, resulted in a disproportionately heavy fine.
   The applicants submit in conclusion that the contested decision was adopted in disregard of essential procedural requirements and contrary to the principle that reasons must be given, inasmuch as no careful investigation was carried out and there was no proper description of the breach in which the applicants are alleged to have participated or of the market on which that breach allegedly took place. Nor, according to the applicants, is there any description of the factors which formed the basis for the appraisal of the gravity of the breach of which they stand accused.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OJ 1974 L 319, p. 1).

      (3)  Information from the Commission - Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case T-66/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2), Article 75, Article 76(1) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle)
   (Case T-66/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2), Article 75, Article 76(1) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten, G. Schneider and D. Walicka, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2012 (Case R 129/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben 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).

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-128/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD — Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)
   (Case T-128/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD - Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 048/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Freyburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Alberto Ruiz Moncayo (Entrena, Spain) (represented by E. Valentín Prades, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 (Case R 1012/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH and Alberto Ruiz Moncayo.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case C-509/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2014  — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual and Others

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2014 — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual and Others
   (Case C-509/14)
   (2015/C 026/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF)

      Defendant: Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios, S.L. and FOGASA

      Question referred

   Does Article 1[(1)](b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001, in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, preclude an interpretation of the Spanish legislation intended to give effect to the Directive, to the effect that a public-sector undertaking, responsible for a service central to its own activities and requiring important material resources, that has been providing that service by means of a public contract, requiring the contractor to use those resources which it owns, is not subject to the obligation to take over the rights and obligations relating to employment relationships when it decides not to extend the contract but to assume direct responsibility for its performance, using its own staff and thereby excluding the staff employed by the contractor, so that the service continues to be provided without any change other than that arising as a result of the replacement of the workers performing the activities and the fact that they are employed by a different employer?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses

      OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.


title: Case T-228/06: Action brought on 28 August 2006 — Giorgio Beverly Hills v OHIM — WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/16

         Action brought on 28 August 2006 — Giorgio Beverly Hills v OHIM — WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS)
   (Case T-228/06)
   (2006/C 249/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Beverly Hills Inc. (Cincinnati, USA) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Hagen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Overrule the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 June 2006 in joined Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2 as far as appeal No R 187/2005-2 was dismissed;

               —

               reject the opposition B 57259 dated July 6, 1998 as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision No 4157/2004 of the Opposition Division of 10 December 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the intervener to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Office for Harmonisation.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS’ for goods in classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 — application No 417 709

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark and Community figurative mark ‘GIORGIO’ for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: There is no sufficient risk of confusion between the conflicting trade marks as there does not exist a relevant similarity between the marks.


title: Case C-98/01: Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
5.5.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 134/9
     iii)  By assimilating the position of the existing four            Pleas in law and main arguments
           global CRS operators with all other operators active
           on the relevant market such as system vendors,               Article 40 of BAA’s Articles, which prevents any person from
           airlines or subscribers and in so doing failed to apply      controlling more than 15 % of the company, restricts portfolio
           the case law of the Court of Justice and, in particular
                                                                        investment, and restricts direct investment and, by the same
           the Court’s decision in Bock and Piraiki-Patraiki.           token, establishment: such restrictions fall under Articles 56
                                                                        and 43 of the EC Treaty. While the restriction is not explicitly
b)   In finding that exceptional economic circumstances do              of a discriminatory nature, such a restriction, liable to hinder
     not mean that the Appellants are individually concerned            the exercise of these freedoms, must be justified by ‘imperative
     by the contested measure the Court of First Instance erred         requirements in the general interest’ and be necessary and
     as a matter of law:                                                appropriate for these requirements.
     i)    By failing to apply the principles laid down in the          The UK authorities have failed to demonstrate the imperative
           judgments of the Court of First Instance in Codorniu         requirements of general interest which are to be protected by
           v. Council and Extrament Industrie v. Council and            the rights attached to the Special share and by the 15 % equity
           subsequently applied by the Court of First Instance          limit and, thus, a fortiori, their proportionality, and it therefore
           and the Court of Justice and/or failing to distinguish       must be concluded that the restrictions on the free movement
           those cases adequately or at all.                            of capital and on establishment created thereby are in violation
                                                                        of the obligations of the Member State under Articles 43 and
     ii)   By failing to take account of the decision of the            56 of the Treaty.
           Court of First Instance in Case T-60/96, Merck and
           others.                                                      A breach of the Treaty may occur upon the introduction by a
                                                                        Member State of restrictions on establishment or capital
                                                                        movements, by whatever means. In relation to BAA the
(1) OJ C 226, 7.8.1999, p. 34.                                          measures introduced by mechanisms of company law were
                                                                        introduced by the State in its capacity as public authority and
                                                                        are clearly intended to remain thus since Article 10(1) of BAA’s
                                                                        Articles only allows the Special share to be transferred to ‘one
                                                                        of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State, another Minister of the
                                                                        Crown or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown’.
                                                                        Consequently, and in order in particular to uphold the
                                                                        uniformity and supremacy of Community law, the adoption
                                                                        by a Member State of the mechanisms of private company law
                                                                        to introduce restrictions on Treaty freedoms can in no way
Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission                    avoid the examination of the compatibility of such restrictions
of the European Communities against the United                          with the Treaty.
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                        After such examination the Commission has reached the
                          (Case C-98/01)                                conclusion that the restrictions contained in Articles 10 and
                                                                        40 of the Articles of Association of BAA are incompatible
                                                                        with the provisions of Articles 43 and 56 of the Treaty on the
                         (2001/C 134/13)                                freedoms of establishment and capital movements.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 27 February 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Mr Frank Benyon and Ms Maria Patakia, acting as agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the House of
                                                                        Lords by order of that court of 8 February 2001, in the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             case of 1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumi-
                                                                        ficio S. Rita S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hy-
a)   declare that the provisions setting a limitation on interests                            grade Foods Limited
     in voting shares in the BAA plc company (Article 40 of
     the Articles of Association), as well as the authorisation                                  (Case C-108/01)
     procedure on the disposal of assets of the company or
     control in subsidiaries and winding-up (Article 10 of the
     Articles of Association) are incompatible with Articles 43                                  (2001/C 134/14)
     and 56 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
b)   order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         European Communities by an order of the House of Lords, of


title: Case T-62/11: Action brought on 25 January 2011 — Air France — KLM v Commission

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/8

         Action brought on 25 January 2011 — Air France — KLM v Commission
   (Case T-62/11)
   2011/C 95/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Air France — KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the entirety of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight) in so far as it concerns Air France-KLM, as well the grounds underlying the operative part of the Decision;

               —

               at the very least, annul Article 5(b) and (d) of Decision No C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 which imposes two fines on Air France-KLM, and the grounds underlying those provisions or reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, those fines to an appropriate amount;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging incorrect attribution to the applicant of liability for the practices of Société Air France and KLM in breach of the obligation to state reasons, the rules governing the attribution to parent companies of the practices of their subsidiaries and of those governing the situation in which companies succeed one another within groups and the principles of personal liability and that penalties should fit the individual offender.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal resulting from the adoption of the contested decision by an authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction, in breach of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of the Commission's Leniency Notice adopted in 2002 (1) and of the principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations resulting from the application of that notice in favour of Lufthansa/Swiss which does not fulfil the conditions of the Leniency Notice.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons resulting from a contradiction between the operative part and the grounds of the contested decision as regards the definition of the infringement imputed to the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging failure to state the grounds and infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination resulting from the abandoning of legal action against eleven airlines.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the principles of non-retroactivity of more severe penalties and of legitimate expectations resulting from the application of the Commission's Guidelines of 2006 on setting fines (2) in respect of the calculation of the fines imposed on the applicant notwithstanding the fact that those guidelines had been adopted after the beginning of the investigation; that retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines led to a significant increase in the fines which could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of the facts.

               7.

               Seventh plea, alleging infringement of the applicant's right to be heard and of the principle of equality of arms with respect to the calculation of the fines imputed to it, since there was no exchange of arguments on the essential elements of the calculation of the fines.

               8.

               Eighth plea, alleging errors affecting the calculation of the fines imputed to the applicant, since those fines were calculated on the basis of incorrect sales values (i) which ought to have included only the surcharges referred to and not the tariffs and (ii) which could not include the amounts corresponding to 50 % of the European Economic Area inbound revenue of Société Air France and KLM.

               9.

               Ninth plea, alleging incorrect assessment of the gravity of the practices of Société Air France and KLM resulting from manifest errors of assessment and breach of the principle of equal treatment, first, because the Commission refused to take account of the lesser gravity of the surcharge infringements, the modest combined market share of the parties, the low profit margins achieved by Société Air France and KLM and the deterioration in their financial situation owing to the economic crisis in the air freight sector and, second, because the Commission included within the scope of the infringement contacts relating to the practices implemented outside of the European Economic Area.

               10.

               Tenth plea, alleging breach of the principle of the proportionality of penalties and a manifest error of assessment resulting from the application of an additional amount of 16 % in the fines imputed to the applicant, and of failure to state reasons in relation to the 16 % rate applied in that respect.

               11.

               Eleventh plea, alleging miscalculation of the duration of the infringement found against Société Air France, which led to an unjustified increase in the fine imputed to the applicant in respect of that infringement.

               12.

               Twelfth plea, alleging that the reduction of 15 % in the fines imputed to the applicant in respect of the regulatory regime governing air freight transport between Member States and third States is manifestly insufficient.

      (1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-334/07: Action brought on 31 August 2007 — Denka International v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/55

         Action brought on 31 August 2007 — Denka International v Commission
   (Case T-334/07)
   (2007/C 269/98)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Denka International BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of Decision 2007/387/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of dichlorvos in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings, as well as compensatory and moratory interests of 8 %.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-326/07 Cheminova and Others v Commission.


title: Joined Cases C-177/09 to C-179/09: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Alix Walsh (C-177/09 and C-179/09), Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe (C-177/09), Action et défense de l’environnement de la Vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL (ADESA), Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne (C-178/09), Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL (C-179/09) v Région wallonne (Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Scope — Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ — Aarhus Convention — Access to justice in environmental matters — Extent of the right to a review procedure in respect of a legislative act)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/7

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Alix Walsh (C-177/09 and C-179/09), Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe (C-177/09), Action et défense de l’environnement de la Vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL (ADESA), Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne (C-178/09), Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL (C-179/09) v Région wallonne
   (Joined Cases C-177/09 to C-179/09) (1)

   (Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Scope - Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ - Aarhus Convention - Access to justice in environmental matters - Extent of the right to a review procedure in respect of a legislative act)
   2012/C 73/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Alix Walsh (C-177/09 and C-179/09), Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe (C-177/09), Action et défense de l’environnement de la Vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL (ADESA), Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne (C-178/09), Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL (C-179/09)

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Interveners: Codic Belgique SA, Federal Express European Services Inc. (FEDEX) (C-177/09 and C-179/09), Intercommunale du Brabant wallon (IBW) (C-178/09)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved, on behalf of the European Community, by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Recognition, as specific acts of national legislation, of certain consents ‘ratified’ by decree in respect of which there are overriding reasons in the general interest? — Absence of a full right to a review procedure in respect of a decision to authorise projects capable of having significant effects on the environment — Whether the existence of such a right is optional or mandatory — Environmental consent granted for the operation of an administrative and training centre in la Hulpe

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of that directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the directive’s scope. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions have been satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply ‘ratify’ a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons in the general interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been commenced, cannot be regarded as a specific legislative act for the purposes of that provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the scope of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35.

               2.

               Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, and Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           when a project falling within the scope of those provisions is adopted by a legislative act, the question whether that legislative act satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 1(5) of that directive must be capable of being submitted, under the national procedural rules, to a court of law or an independent and impartial body established by law;

                           —

                           if no review procedure of the nature and scope set out above were available in respect of such an act, any national court before which an action falling within its jurisdiction is brought would have the task of carrying out the review described in the previous indent and, as the case may be, drawing the necessary conclusions by disapplying that legislative act.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 in Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley v Council of the European Union (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Appointment of a Language Adviser in the English and Irish Language — Division of the Council Termination of the procedure for filling the post under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Action for compensation)

text:
C 71/26                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.3.2004
1.     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) of 12 July 2002 (Case R 719/2000-4);
                                                                                of 17 December 2003
2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            in Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
(1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.                                                                            pean Union (1)
                                                                            (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            — Appointment of a Language Adviser in the English and
                                                                            Irish Language — Division of the Council Termination of
                                                                            the procedure for filling the post under Article 29(1)(a) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Action for
                                                                                compensation)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 71/48)
                        of 11 December 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-323/02: Monique Breton v Court of Justice of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points —
                             Admissibility)                                 In Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council of
                                                                            the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
                                                                            ed by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for
                            (2004/C 71/47)                                  service in Luxembourg, against the Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agent: F. Anton) — application for, first, annulment of
                                                                            the decision contained in the letter of 30 January 2002 of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Director General of Directorate General A of the Council to
                                                                            terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff
                                                                            Regulations for filling the post of Language Adviser in the
                                                                            English and Irish Language Division and to proceed to the next
In Case T-323/02: Monique Breton, an official of the Court of               stage, namely the organisation of an internal competition
Justice of the European Communities, residing at Howald                     under Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and, second,
(Luxembourg), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Mar-                for compensation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
chal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service                   Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
in Luxembourg, against Court of Justice of the European                     M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application for annul-                    gave a judgment on 17 December 2003, in which it:
ment of the decision of the Court of Justice concerning the
award to the applicant of promotion points for the years
1998, 1999 and 2000 pursuant to the Court’s decision of                     1.    Annuls the decision contained in the letter of 30 January 2002
18 October 2000 on promotions and the decision of the                             of the Director General of Directorate General A of the Council
Registrar of the Court of 3 December 2001 establishing a                          to terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff
transitional system for promotions — the Court of First                           Regulations for filling the post of Language Adviser in the
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,                       English and Irish Language Division and to proceed to the next
and M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-                      stage, namely the organisation of an internal competition under
trator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations.
11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the applicant’s application for compensation.
1.     dismisses the application;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 7 of 11.1.2003.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case C-104/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 4 March 2013 — AS ‘Olainfarm’ v Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija, Zāļu valsts aģentūra

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 4 March 2013 — AS ‘Olainfarm’ v Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija, Zāļu valsts aģentūra
   (Case C-104/13)
   2013/C 123/20
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AS ‘Olainfarm’

      Defendants: Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija, Zāļu valsts aģentūra

      Intervener: AS ‘Grindeks’

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 10 or of any other provision of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, has the manufacturer of a reference medicinal product an individual right to bring an action challenging the decision of a competent authority by which a generic medicinal product of another manufacturer of medicinal products was registered, using as the reference medicinal product the product registered by the manufacturer of the reference medicinal product? In other words, does that Directive confer on the manufacturer of the reference medicinal product the right to a judicial remedy, the object of which is to determine whether the manufacturer of the generic medicinal product made lawful, well-founded reference to the product registered by the manufacturer of the reference medicinal product, relying on Article 10 of the Directive?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question should be affirmative, on a proper construction of Articles 10 and 10a of the Directive, may a medicinal product registered in accordance with Article 10a of the Directive as a medicinal product in well-established medicinal use be used as a reference medicinal product for the purpose of Article 10(2)(a)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.


title: Case C-456/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2015 — T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission, French Republic, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Action for annulment — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Act of individual concern to the appellants — Right to effective judicial protection — Exceptional measures relating to the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the European Union market — Marketing year 2010/2011)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2015 — T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission, French Republic, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-456/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Right to bring an action - Locus standi - Natural or legal persons - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Act of individual concern to the appellants - Right to effective judicial protection - Exceptional measures relating to the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the European Union market - Marketing year 2010/2011))
   (2015/C 213/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and P. Rossi, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.