title: Case C-398/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Thomas Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Approximation of laws — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Scope — Supplementary occupational pension schemes — Defined benefit and balance of costs scheme — Insufficiency of resources — Minimum level of protection — Economic crisis — Balanced economic and social development — Obligations of the Member States concerned in the event of insufficiency of resources — Liability of the Member State in the event of incorrect transposition)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Thomas Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs and Others
   (Case C-398/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Scope - Supplementary occupational pension schemes - Defined benefit and balance of costs scheme - Insufficiency of resources - Minimum level of protection - Economic crisis - Balanced economic and social development - Obligations of the Member States concerned in the event of insufficiency of resources - Liability of the Member State in the event of incorrect transposition)
   2013/C 171/11
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Plaintiffs: Thomas Hogan, John Burns, John Dooley, Alfred Ryan, Michael Cunningham, Michael Dooley, Denis Hayes, Marion Walsh, Joan Power, Walter Walsh

      Defendants: Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland, Attorney General

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court (Ireland) — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and (8) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36) — Supplementary occupational pension schemes — Insufficiency of resources of those schemes — National legislation which does not provide a legal basis for employees to obtain compensation from their employer in consequence of the insolvency of the undertaking — Obligation of the Member State concerned to adopt the necessary measures to protect the interest of employees — Factors to be taken into account in the national court’s assessment of compliance with that obligation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer.

               2.

               Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that State pension benefits may not be taken into account in assessing whether a Member State has complied with the obligation laid down in that article.

               3.

               Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for that article to apply, it is sufficient that the pension scheme is underfunded as of the date of the employer’s insolvency and that, on account of his insolvency, the employer does not have the resources to contribute sufficient money to the pension scheme to enable the pension benefits owed to the beneficiaries of that scheme to be satisfied in full. It is not necessary for those beneficiaries to prove that there are other factors giving rise to the loss of their entitlement to old-age benefits.

               4.

               Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the measures adopted by Ireland following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 January 2007 in Case C 278/05 Robins and Others do not fulfil the obligations imposed by that directive and that the economic situation of the Member State concerned does not constitute an exceptional situation capable of justifying a lower level of protection of the interests of employees as regards their entitlement to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme.

               5.

               Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the measures taken by Ireland subsequent to Robins and Others have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49 % of the value of their accrued old-age pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of that Member State’s obligations.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by ATIC - Associação Técnica da Indústria de Cimento against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-63/95)

text:
No C 137/26         T EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by ATIC —                            1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, resident in Kehlen
Associagao Tecnica da Industria de Cimento against the                  ( Luxembourg ),       represented      by     Dieter      Rogalla
         Commission of the European Communities                         ( Rechtsanwalt) of Sprockhovel ( Germany), with an address
                          ( Case T-63/95 )                              for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Armin
                                                                        Machmer, 1 Rue Roger Barthel, Luxembourg.
                            ( 95/C 137/62 )
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European                        ( a ) declare the Commission obliged to continue covering
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             the applicant under the Joint Sickness Insurance
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                           Scheme against the relevant risks, and should grant
1995 by ATIC — Associa^ao Tecnica da Industria de                             such declaration, pending an appropriate revision of
Cimento , whose seat is at 54/2 Avenida 5 de Outubro,                         the Staff Regulations, in the context of constructive
Lisbon, represented by Mario Joao Marques Mendes, of the                      development of the law and the exercise of discretion
Portuguese Bar, whose chambers are at 63/6 Rua Castilho,                      'extra legem ';
1250 Lisbon, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                               ( b ) declare the Commission obliged , in relation to the Staff
                                                                              Regulations, to use its right to make proposals to the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  Council of the European Union in such a way as to give
                                                                              divorced spouses of officials the possibility of obtaining
— annul the Commission 's decision of 30 November 1994                        provisional cover in accordance with ( a ), to the extent
    ( IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ), and specifically                       that, in the exercise of their right of freedom of
    Articles 1 , 2 ( 1 ), 2 (2 ) ( b ) and 5 thereof, so far as it            movement, they cannot be covered by any statutory
    concerns ATIC ,                                                           system of sickness provision in their country of origin
                                                                              and if they have their own entitlement to a pension
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on ATIC,                        following a rights adjustment;
— oder the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.                    ( c ) in the alternative, in the context of the social provisions
                                                                              of the European treaties, including the Treaty of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           Maastricht, and of the Social Chapter, indicate to the
                                                                              Government of the applicant's country of origin
The application is based on the following defects, which                      ( Germany ) the gap revealed in German social law and
affect the legality of the Commission decision:                               request the Government to take appropriate action to
                                                                              close that gap, so as to ensure that persons whose social
— defects relating to the infringement of the rights of the                   rights lie not with a Member State of the European
    defence,                                                                  Communities but, as in the applicant's case, exclusively
                                                                              with Community institutions do not suffer curtailment
— defects relating to the absence of proof or the incorrect                   or even removal of their cover against sickness risks in
    assessment of the available proof in charging the                         the event of their returning to their country of
    applicant with the alleged infringements,                                 origin;
— a defect relating to the incorrect legal assessment of the
    applicability of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to               ( d ) order the Commission to pay the costs.
    associations of undertakings,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— a defect relating to the breach of the principle of
    proportionality in imposing the fine .
                                                                        The applicant, a former official of the Court of Justice and
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities, and since
                                                                        1 April 1994 the divorced wife of an official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, objects to the fact that, under Article 72 ( lb ) of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations, she cannot continue to enjoy the
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Hedwig                            benefit of the Community health care scheme after the cover
Kuchlenz-Winter against the Commission of the European                  provided for her by that Article expires on 1 April 1995 .
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-66/95 )                              Following her marriage, the applicant left the employment
                                                                        of the Communities after seven and a half years' service .
                            ( 95/C 137/63 )
                                                                        During her marriage, she enjoyed the cover of the Joint
                                                                        Sickness Insurance Scheme as the wife of an official . She
              (Language of the case: German)                            argues that, because in her native Germany she cannot be
                                                                       covered against health risks either by statutory or by private
An action against the Commission of the European                        sickness insurance, she is obliged to continue living in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Luxembourg after her divorce in order to avoid losing the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                     relevant protection.


title: Case T-456/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — TAO-AFI and SFIE-PE v Parliament and Council (Remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union — Annual adjustment — Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 — Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures — Failure to consult trade unions)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — TAO-AFI and SFIE-PE v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-456/14) (1)

   ((Remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Annual adjustment - Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 - Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures - Failure to consult trade unions))
   (2016/C 392/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Association des fonctionnaires indépendants pour la défense de la fonction publique européenne (TAO-AFI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) (Brussels) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and J. Vanden Eynde, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and G. Gattinara, then G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Regulations (EU) Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 and from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, respectively, p. 5 and p. 12)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Association des fonctionnaires indépendants pour la défense de la fonction publique européenne (TAO-AFI) and Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-246/10: Action brought on 25 May 2010 — Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM — Motive (Speed reducers)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/31

         Action brought on 25 May 2010 — Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM — Motive (Speed reducers)
   (Case T-246/10)
   2010/C 195/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL (Xeraco, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Motive S.r.l.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision and, accordingly, dismiss the opposition brought by MOTIVE S.r.l., and declare that the grant of Community Design No 000625702-001 for ‘reducers’ is well founded;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community Design No 625702-0001 for Reducers in Class 15/01 (Motors)).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Motive S.r.l.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Community Design No 73952-0001

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the Community design concerned.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs.


title: Case C-238/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Asnef-Equifax, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc) (Competition — Article 81 EC — System for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Effect on trade between Member States — Restriction of competition — Benefit for consumers)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Asnef-Equifax, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)
   (Case C-238/05) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - System for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Effect on trade between Member States - Restriction of competition - Benefit for consumers)
   (2006/C 331/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ASNEF-EQUIFAX, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL

      Defendant: Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 81 EC — Compatibility with the common market of an agreement setting up a system for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency — Beneficial effects for consumers and users of financial services — Possibility of Member States granting an exemption
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 81(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a system for the exchange of information on credit between financial institutions, such as the register of information on customer solvency at issue in the main proceedings, does not, in principle, have as its effect the restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision, provided that the relevant market or markets are not highly concentrated, that that system does not permit lenders to be identified and that the conditions of access and use by financial institutions are not discriminatory, in law or in fact.

               2)

               In the event that a system for the exchange of information on credit, such as that register, restricts competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, the applicability of the exemption provided for in Article 81(3) EC is subject to the four cumulative conditions laid down in that provision. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied. In order for the condition that consumers be allowed a fair share of the benefit to be satisfied, it is not necessary, in principle, for each consumer individually to derive a benefit from an agreement, a decision or a concerted practice. However, the overall effect on consumers in the relevant markets must be favourable.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case C-232/10: Action brought on 10 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/21

         Action brought on 10 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-232/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/27
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and Ł. Habiak, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement in full Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2007/44/EC had to be implemented expired on 21 March 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1.


title: Case T-233/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2008 — Casa Editorial El Tiempo v OHIM — Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Application for Community word mark EL TIEMPO — Earlier national word marks TELETIEMPO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2008 — Casa Editorial El Tiempo v OHIM — Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO)
   (Case T-233/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Application for Community word mark EL TIEMPO - Earlier national word marks TELETIEMPO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 142/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Casa Editorial El Tiempo, SA (Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Fernández Lerroux and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (Madrid, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2006 (Case R 760/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Instituto Nacional de Meteorología and Casa Editoria El Tiempo, SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Casa Editorial El Tiempo to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova by an order of that court of 5 July 1996 in the case pending before it between Società Corsica Ferries France and 1. Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova 2. Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3. Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione (Case C-266/96)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 336/ 17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                Action brought on 12 September 1996 by the French
Genova by an order of that court of 5 July 1996 in the case           Republic against the Commission of the European
pending before it between Società Corsica Ferries France                                          Communities
and 1 . Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova 2 .                                    ( Case C-299/96 )
Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3 . Ministero
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/33 )
               dei Trasporti e della Navigazione
                        ( Case C-266/96
                          ( 96/C 336/32 )                             An action against the Commission was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      12 September 1996 by the French Republic, represented by
                                                                      Catherine de Salins and Gautier Mignot, acting as Agents,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District             Embassy, 9 Boulevard du Prince Henri .
Court ), Genoa, of 5 July 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 August 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case pending before it between Societa Corsica Ferries            The applicant claims that the Court should :
France and 1 . Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di
Genova 2 . Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3 .             — annul the registration of ' feta ' as a protected designation
Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione on the                        of origin in Part A of the Annex to Commission
following questions :                                                     Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 ( 1 ) of 12 June 1996 ,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
1 . Must Article 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
     precluding legislation and/or administrative practice in a
     Member State which debars shipping companies                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     established in other Member States from berthing their
     vessels on entry to docks in the first-mentioned State, or       Infringement of Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
     unmooring those vessels on departure, unless they use            No 2081 /92 ( 2 ) of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
     the services provided by a local undertaking by virtue of        geographical indications and designations of origin for
     its exclusive concession in respect of berthing and              agricultural products and foodstuffs :
     unmooring facilities, which entails paying to that
     undertaking dues which may not be commensurate with              — the name ' feta ' does not fulfil the criteria laid down by
     the actual cost of the services provided ?                           Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 for the
                                                                          registration of a name as a protected designation of
                                                                          origin : the term ' feta ' does not refer in any way to the
2 . Does Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of                         name of a region or a specific place in Greece, nor to the
     22 December 1 986 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 59 of            name of that country ( Article 2 ( 2 )). Nor is it a
     the Treaty preclude the imposition in a Member State of              traditional name designating an agricultural product or
     a requirement whereby berthing services are obligatory               a foodstuff originating in a region or a specific place
     and shipping companies established in another Member                 ( Article 2 ( 3 )). Feta has in fact never been exclusively
     State are charged tariffs which are fixed not by law but             produced in a region or specific place within the Hellenic
     merely by administrative discretion in respect of the                Republic, but was traditionally known by the name
     arrival or departure of their vessels in or from the                 'telemea' in Romania and northern Greece and by the
     first-mentioned Member State ?
                                                                          name 'touloumootyri ' in southern Greece before being
                                                                          designated by the generic term ' feta', originating from
                                                                          the Italian . It was not until 1987 that the Hellenic
3 . Do Articles 3 , 5 , 90 ( 1 ), 85 and 86 of the Treaty, in
                                                                          Republic laid down various characteristics with regard
     conjunction, preclude legislation and/or administrative
                                                                          to the method of manufacturing feta and its
     practice in a Member State which confers on an
                                                                          composition, as well as its origin. Ultimately, the
     undertaking established in that State an exclusive right
                                                                          designation of origin ' feta ' was recognized by a 1994
     to provide berthing services such as to enable those
                                                                          decree, the zones authorized to produce feta being
     services to be made compulsory, dues to be charged
                                                                          restricted to most of the territory of the Hellenic
     which may not be commensurate with the actual cost of
                                                                          Republic and almost all of its mainland territory . The
     the services provided, tariffs to be applied which have
                                                                          applicant further states, in the alternative, that feta does
     been determined by agreement and/or administrative                   not essentially owe its quality or characteristics to the
     discretion, and tariff conditions to be imposed which
                                                                          geographical location of the regions in which it is
     vary from one port to another, even for like services ?
                                                                          produced in Greece,
(') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                      — the name ' feta ' may in fact be seen as a generic name
                                                                          designating a type of cheese . Whilst the name ' feta '
                                                                          undeniably has specifically Greek connotations for
                                                                          consumers in that country, it does not evoke any
                                                                          specifically Greek origin . As regards the situation in the
                                                                          other Member States, feta has for several decades been


title: Case T-470/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v. OHIM (ELITEPAD)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/50

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v. OHIM (ELITEPAD)
   (Case T-470/14)
   2014/C 292/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 884/2013-2;

               —

               Award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELITEPAD’ for goods in Class 9 Community trade mark application No 1 1 3 18  284

      Decision of the Examiner: The application was refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

      Pleas in law: Violation of Art. 7 (1) (c) and Art. 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-357/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, Italy) — Frigerio Luigi & C. Snc v Comune di Triuggio (Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — National legislation restricting the award of local public services of economic interest to companies with share capital — Compatibility)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, Italy) — Frigerio Luigi & C. Snc v Comune di Triuggio
   (Case C-357/06) (1)

   (Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - National legislation restricting the award of local public services of economic interest to companies with share capital - Compatibility)
   (2008/C 51/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frigerio Luigi & C. Snc

      Defendant: Comune di Triuggio

      Intervening party: Azienda Servizi Multisettoriali Lombarda — A.S.M.L. SpA
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Arts 39, 43, 48 and 81 EC, Article 26(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114), Article 9(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) — Procedure for the award of public service contracts — Environmental hygiene service — Domestic legislation authorising joint stock companies alone to hold contracts for waste management and disposal services
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 26(1) and (2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, precludes national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude candidates or tenderers entitled under the law of the Member State concerned to provide the service in question, including those composed of groups of service providers, from submitting a tender, in a procedure for the award of a public service contract with a value greater than the threshold for application of Directive 92/50, solely on the ground that those candidates or tenderers do not have a legal form corresponding to a specific category of legal persons, namely that of a company with share capital. It is for the national court, to the full extent of its discretion under national law, to interpret and apply national law in accordance with the requirements of Community law and, in so far as such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any provision of national law which is contrary to those requirements.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-626/10 P: Order of the Court of 10 November 2011 — Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès v European Commission, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (Appeal — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(1)(b) and (2), first indent — Protection of private life and integrity of the individual — Protection of commercial interests — Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 — Executive agencies — Competence to handle confirmatory requests regarding applications for access to documents — Principle of transparency — ‘Overriding public interest’ — Errors of law)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/9

         Order of the Court of 10 November 2011 — Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès v European Commission, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
   (Case C-626/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(b) and (2), first indent - Protection of private life and integrity of the individual - Protection of commercial interests - Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 - Executive agencies - Competence to handle confirmatory requests regarding applications for access to documents - Principle of transparency - ‘Overriding public interest’ - Errors of law)
   2012/C 73/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès (represented by: C. Joséphidès and H. Joséphidès, dikigorio)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents), The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, Agent))

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T-439/08 Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant seeking annulment, first, of the decision of EACEA of 1 August 2008 relating to an application for access to documents concerning the allocation of a Jean Monnet centre of excellence to the University of Cyprus and, second, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2007 relating to an individual decision to allocate subsidies in the context of the lifelong learning programme, a Jean Monnet sub-programme — Infringement of the right of access to documents and of the principle of transparency — Errors of law

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mrs Agapiou Joséphidès is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-256/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2008 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons — Judicial review)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2008 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council
   (Case T-256/07) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Judicial review)
   (2008/C 313/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer, and D. Vaughan QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by V. Jackson and T. Harris, and subsequently by V. Jackson, Agents, and assisted by S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers); Commission of the European Communities (represented: initially by S. Boelaert and J. Aquilina, and subsequently by S. Boelaert, P. Aalto and P. van Nuffel, Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION, initially, for annulment of Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58), so far as it concerns the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC

               2.

               Annuls Article 1 of Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445, and point 2.19 of the list annexed to that decision, in so far as they concern the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of the other provisions of Decision 2007/868, so far as the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is concerned;

               4.

               Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, one third of the costs of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran;

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by the Coca-Cola Company against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-125/97)

text:
No C 199/32            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by the Coca-Cola                     joint venture in question — Amalgamated Beverages Great
Company against the Commission of the European                       Britain ('ABGB') — was formed in 1986 by Cadbury
                           Communities                               Schweppes ('CS') and The Coca-Cola Company ('TCCC'),
                        ( Case T-125/97)                             owners of a variety of soft drink brands sold in Britain
                                                                     and elsewhere . Throughout its existence, ABGB's sole
                          ( 97/C 199/79 )                            business was to bottle, distribute, market and sell the soft
                                                                     drinks of its owners ( and others ) throughout Great
                                                                     Britain. That business was carried out through ABGB's
                (Language of the case: English)                      wholly-owned subsidiary, Coca-Cola & Schweppes
                                                                     Beverages (' CCSB').
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997                The current proceeding began when CS and TCCC
by the Coca-Cola Company, represented by Mario                       informed the Commission of their agreement to dissolve
Siragusa of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, with an              ABGB by selling their respective interests therein to Coca
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Cola Enterprises (' CCE'), an independent bottling
Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich.                                     company with no prior activities in Britain . After receiving
                                                                     Commission approval, the parties consummated the
                                                                     transaction in February 1997. TCCC does not contest the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Commission's approval of the transaction. Rather, it
                                                                     challenges the Decision's extensive adverse findings on the
                                                                     issues of product market definition, dominance and
— declare Commission Decision 97/180/EC of 22 January                control of CCE by TCCC, and an undertaking, apparently
     1997 void in so far as it finds that: ( i ) the supply of       based on the dominance finding, that places limits on
    cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks in Great Britain            CCSB's competitive conduct. These findings and the
    comprises a relevant market; ii ) CCSB holds a                   undertaking will have enduring effects on the legal
    dominant position on that market; and iii ) TCCC                 positions and businesses of both TCCC and CCE,
    controls CCE within the meaning of Article 3 ( 3 ) of             notwithstanding their obvious lack of influence on the
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 ,                          ultimate decision to clear the transaction .
alternatively,                                                        The applicant points out that the Commission's
                                                                      determination that colas form a separate relevant product
— declare Commission Decision 97/180/EC of 22 January                 market, or that TCCC or a Coca-Cola bottler is a
     1997 void in its entirety in so far as such a declaration        dominant undertaking, would have important legal and
     is necessary to annul the findings mentioned in the              business ramifications for TCCC and its European
     preceding paragraph and to declare the acquisition of            bottlers . The legal standard governing their conduct would
     ABGB by CCE approved in accordance with Article 10               be more restrictive, and the precedent would undoubtedly
     ( 6 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89,                          be followed by national competition authorities and
                                                                      courts . In particular, the dominance finding purports to
                                                                      impose commercial restrictions on CCSB's conduct that in
                                                                      turn limits CCSB 's freedom to bottle and distribute
 and in either case,
                                                                      TCCC's products . Moreover, TCCC runs a concrete and
                                                                      demonstrable      risk   that  the  Commission 's   decision
 — declare void the undertaking given to the Commission               regarding these matters will be considered res judicata by
     by CCE on 17 February 1997, and also the finding on              national courts and agencies without TCCC's having had
     the basis of which the Commission requested and                  the opportunity of review by a Community Court.
     obtained that undertaking, namely that CCSB holds a
     dominant position on a relevant market comprising
     the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks in           In this context it cannot be claimed that the extensive
     Great Britain,                                                   Commission findings on the issues of market definition,
                                                                      dominance and control are intended as idle dicta. To every
                                                                      appearance, the Commission took great care to support
 — order the Commission to pay TCCC's legal fees and                  its findings and to present them as it would present
     expenses .                                                       the resolution of precedential issues essential to the
                                                                      competitive assessment of the transaction. Because these
                                                                      findings are rendered in a decision granting unconditional
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  clearance, they threaten to attain the force of precedent
                                                                      without benefit of the required legal safeguards if not
                                                                      reviewed by the Court.
 This application concerns Commission Decision 97/ 180/
 CE of 22 January 1997 ('the Decision'), which was issued
 pursuant to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 ('the
 Regulation') and which approved the dissolution of a joint           The applicant submits that the Commission ignored
 venture pursuant to Article 8 ( 2 ) of the Regulation . The          extensive credible evidence of consumer substitution,
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/33
ordinarily regarded as highly material to market                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
definition. It adopted a highly selective approach to other
evidence on market definition and dominance, and placed
inordinate weight on untested or subjective views and on
evidence of factors having limited probative value.                 The applicant challenges the Commission's decision
Furthermore, the Commission invoked an irrelevant legal             reducing the amount granted for a training programme
provision, namely Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )             undertaken by it in 1989 .
No 4064/89 ( OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p. 1 ), in
analysing TCCC's relationship to CCE, and literally
ignored uncontested testimony by a renowned authority
on the applicable corporate governance standards supplied           In support of its claim the applicant alleges breach of the
by US law.                                                          principles of stability, legal certainty and legitimate
                                                                    expectation, together with breach of the principle of
                                                                    proper administration of justice and of the duty of care .
                                                                    The contested decision is vitiated by a lack of an adequate
The applicant states in this regard that TCCC does not              statement of reasons and abuse of rights on the ground of
own, or have the right to use, any of CCE's assets; it does         venire contra factum proprium, in view of the manifest
not own or control a majority shareholding in CCE, has              breach of the protected rights of individuals — acquired
no preferential shares giving it a majority of the voting           rights — legal certainty and legitimate expectations .
rights in CCE, has no veto rights, has no right to appoint
any members of CCE's board, and has no agreement with
other shareholders to confer majority voting power or               In particular, following approval for the training project to
permit the appointment of directors.                                be organized by the applicant, DAFSE considered that the
                                                                    applicant was not complying with the rule that the hours
                                                                    timetabled for practical training cannot exceed those for
                                                                    theory training. This finding was based on the fact that,
                                                                    despite the applicant having submitted identical timetables
                                                                    for the theory training ( 200 hours ) and the practical
                                                                    training ( 200 hours ), DAFSE doubted whether the 'theory
                                                                    training sessions' consisted of theory at all . Moreover, the
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Sonasa, Sociedade                theory sessions provided in the training project at issue
Nacional de Segurança, Lda. against the Commission of               were absolutely identical with those provided in the
                 the European Communities                           training project undertaken the previous year ( 1988 ),
                                                                    which neither DAFSE nor the Commission had challenged,
                       ( Case T-126/97)                             despite its having been observed by DAFSE inspectors .
                         ( 97/C 199/80 )
                                                                    The applicant points out the fact that, two years after the
                                                                    submission of the claim for payment of the outstanding
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    balance, the applicant was informed by DAFSE that there
                                                                    was to be a factual and accounting verification of the
                                                                    projects undertaken in the framework of the procedure
                                                                    relating to the ESF contributions for 1989 . However, only
An action against the Commission of the European                    two years after that announcement and, therefore, four
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    years after the submission of the claim for payment of the
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
                                                                    outstanding balance, the applicant was made aware of an
by Sonasa, Sociedade Nacional de Segurança, Lda ., having           audit report which considered ineligible, among other
its registered office at Av. Infante D. Henrique, Lote 328         expenditure which is not considered here, expenditure in
C, Cabo Ruivo, 1800 Lisboa, represented by Dr Nuno
                                                                    respect of the theory sessions, thus further reducing the
Morais Sarmento, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for             total amount of the contributions from the ESF and the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen,             OSS from Esc 27 841 049 ( total expenditure incurred ) to
13 Rue Aldringen, Luxembourg.                                       Esc 15 591 329 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant now finds itself, nearly seven years after the
                                                                    final payment claim and after all the advances paid by
                                                                    DAFSE and the Commission, in an unjustly uncertain
                                                                    situation inasmuch as the Commission gave rise to an
— annul        Commission      Decision  C(96 )    3451    of       expectation that it would pay the outstanding balance
     16 December 1996,                                              which it now refuses to do .
— order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Appeal brought on 21 November 1995 by ENU (Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA) against the judgment delivered on 15 September 1995 by the Second Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 between ENU (Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA) and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-357/95 P)

text:
No C 16/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20 . 1 . 96
        ( EEC ) No 1765/92 ( ) of 30 June 1992 establishing a                     of the Community legal system caused the applicant
        support system for producers of certain arable crops, to                  damage which is not yet possible to quantify with
        establish separate production regions without                             certainty;
        indicating the decisive 'criteria' in that regard ?
                                                                              2 . the European Atomic Energy Community should
( b ) If question ( a ) above is answered in the affirmative, is a                compensate the damage on a basis to be agreed
        Member State which under the third sentence of the
                                                                                between the parties or, failing agreement within 60
        second subparagraph of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Regulation                      days from delivery of the judgment, on a basis to be
        ( EEC ) No 1765/92 has designated not its entire                          defined by the Court.
        territory but — as in the case of the Federal Republic of
        Germany — merely particular parts of it as base area
        regions, entitled in principle under the first
        subparagraph of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        No 1765/92 to establish the whole territory of a
        particular base area region also as a production region         Breach of Community law: The Commission disputed the
        with a uniform average cereals yield ? In the situation         finding of the Court of First Instance that Article 66 of the
        described, in which cases do the ' specific characteristics     EAEC Treaty requires users to exhaust internal sources of
        that influence yields such as soil fertility' require a more    supply before resorting to external suppliers. None the less,
        extensive division of base area regions into individual         users may refuse supplies from the Agency and seek supplies
        production regions with different average cereals               outside the Community (Article 66 ) only if they can claim
        yields ?                                                        that the price is excessive ( not having been corrected by the
                                                                        Council, under Article 69 , or by the equalization
H OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12 .                                  procedure ). The inescapable conclusion must be that
                                                                        Community production offered to the Agency has an
                                                                        assured outlet on the internal market inasmuch as demand
                                                                        exceeds supply, provided that the prices asked are not
                                                                        excessive . The Community preference for producers is
                                                                        obvious .
Appeal brought on 21 November 1995 by ENU ( Empresa
Nacional de Urânio SA) against the judgment delivered on
 15 September 1995 by the Second Chamber ( extended                     Beyond Community production, the Commission will meet
 composition ) of the Court of First Instance of the European           orders only if it obtains supplies from outside the
 Communities in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93                      Community. In other words, the only production on which
between ENU (Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA) and the                     the Agency and the users may count with any certainty is the
             Commission of the European Communities                     production compulsorily offered to the Agency by
                          Case C-357/95 P )                             Community producers. The Agency must therefore dispose
                                                                        preferentially of the Community production to meet orders,
                             ( 96/C 16/12 )                             resorting to importation only where this proves to be
                                                                        necessary. Failure to act in that way would prejudice the
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September                'fundamental objective' of the survival and the
 1 995 by the Second Chamber ( extended composition ) of the            encouragement of Community production and, in the long
 Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                 term, ensuring the self-sufficiency of the Community .
 Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 between ENU
 ( Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA) and the Commission of
 the European Communities was brought before the Court                   Guaranteeing the disposal of the small production of the
 of Justice of the European Communities on 21 November                   ENU, offered to the Agency at a price which is not excessive,
  1 995 by ENU ( Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA),                         does not even require Community preference to be invoked
 represented by Joâo Mota de Campos and by Joâo Luis                     or recognized. It is clear that, as soon as there is Community
 Mota de Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for                  product available at 'non-excessive' prices, the Agency has
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Joaquim Calvo                  the power to supply users and the latter may not import
 Basarân, 34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen.                                   directly by virtue of Article 66 . In view of the undisputed
                                                                         fact that Community production is insufficient, covering
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                            only 25 % of a growing market, the above would guarantee
                                                                         the disposal of the small production of ENU.
  ( a ) declare well-founded the application for the annulment
          of the Commission decision challenged before the
          Court of First Instance and, accordingly, declare the          Breach of Community law: the failure by the Agency to
          decision void;                                                 comply with the rules laid down in Chapter VI, under the
                                                                         aegis of the Commission, which disregarded the Treaty,
  ( b ) find that the action for damages brought against the             entailed serious damage for ENU, which must be made good
          Commission, in the terms set forth in the original              by the Community.
          application, is well founded and therefore that:
          1 , the infringement by the Commission of the
              provisions of the EAEC Treaty and of the principles


title: Case C-47/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Common rules for direct support schemes — Single payment scheme — Definition of ‘permanent pasture’  — Land used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage not part of the system of crop rotation of the holding for a minimum of five years — Land ploughed up and sown with a type of herbaceous forage other than that previously grown on it during that period)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
   (Case C-47/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Common rules for direct support schemes - Single payment scheme - Definition of ‘permanent pasture’ - Land used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage not part of the system of crop rotation of the holding for a minimum of five years - Land ploughed up and sown with a type of herbaceous forage other than that previously grown on it during that period))
   2014/C 421/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin Grund

      Defendant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

      Operative part of the judgment

   The definition of ‘permanent pasture’ set out in Article 2(2)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers must be interpreted as covering agricultural land which is currently, and has been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land has been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which was previously grown on it during that period.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-304/09: Action brought on 31 July 2009 — Tilda Riceland v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/11

         Action brought on 31 July 2009 — Tilda Riceland v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)
   (Case T-304/09)
   2009/C 244/18
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Tilda Riceland Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Sills and N. Urwin, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siam Grains Company Limited (Bangkok, Thailand)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 2009 in case R 513/2008-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE’, for goods in class 30

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: A non-registered trade mark of the word ’BASMATI” used for rice and a sign consisting of the word ‘BASMATI’ used in the course of trade designating a class of goods, namely rice

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly based its decision solely upon an interpretation of the provision which fails to take into account national rules and judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned; secondly, the Board of Appeal failed to apply the law of a Member State, namely the United Kingdom, in relation to the form of action known as the ‘extended form of passing off’; thirdly, the Board of Appeal erred in requiring that the applicant must hold proprietary rights to the sign ‘BASMATI’; finally, the Board of Appeal erred in holding that the word ‘BASMATI’ is generic.


title: Case F-27/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Sundholm v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — Appraisal year 2001/2002 — Absence on medical grounds — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Article 233 EC)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case F-27/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - Appraisal year 2001/2002 - Absence on medical grounds - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Article 233 EC)
   (2008/C 22/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, made in compliance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission. Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117 of 29.5.2007, p. 37.


title: Case T-549/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/60

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-549/08)
   (2009/C 44/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: M. Fisch, agent and P. Kinsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decisions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5383 of 24 September 2008 on the suspension of interim payments from the European Social Fund (ESF) to the single programming document for Community structural interventions falling under Objective No 3 to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and Commission Decision C(2008) 5730 of 6 October 2008 on the suspension of interim payments from the Community initiative to combat discrimination and inequality in the employment market (EQUAL) to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law:

               —

               an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission concluded, when two preventive audits of the Luxembourg system of management and monitoring were carried out prior to the programming period concerned, that that system provided sufficient safeguards of compliance with the current rules and the generally accepted criteria of good management; only when an audit was carried out after expiry of the programming period concerned did the Commission come to unfavourable conclusions about the system of management and monitoring;

               —

               an incorrect interpretation of the regulatory provisions on which the contested decisions are based (1), since those provisions do not preclude, contrary to what Commission has claimed, (i) the managing authority and the payment authority belonging to the same institution and (ii) the national managing authority submitting to the Commission a statement of expenditure as to which doubt may well exist, but which at the time of statement has not been proved to merit being legally classified as ineligible;

               —

               substantive inaccuracy in some of the facts on which the contested decisions are based as to record keeping by the managing authority.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).


title: Case C-59/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova — Sezione Lavoro by order of that Court of 28 January 2003 in the case of Mario Cigliola and Others against Ferrovie dello Stato SpA

text:
C 83/12                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                             by order of that Court of 4 February 2003 in the case of
                                                                                Y.G. Encheva against Staatssecretaris van Justitie
a)    declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
      comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                (Case C-58/03)
      European Communities of 9 March 2000 in Case C-386/
      98 ( 1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 228(1) EC.                                                                        (2003/C 83/20)
b)    impose a penalty payment on the Italian Republic in the
      sum of EUR 238 950 per day from the date of notification               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council
      of the judgment in the present case to the date of
      execution thereof.                                                     of State) of 4 February 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                             12 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                             Y.G. Encheva against Staatssecretaris van Justitie on the
c)    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           following questions:
                                                                             1.    Is Article 59(1) of the Agreement establishing an associ-
                                                                                ation between the European Communities and their
                                                                                Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
                                                                                Bulgaria, of the other part, to be interpreted as precluding
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    the refusal of an application made in the Netherlands for
                                                                                an ordinary residence permit subject to a restriction that
                                                                                the person concerned be ‘self-employed’ on the grounds
                                                                                that the foreigner concerned, who is a national of
Under Article 228(1) EC, where the Court of Justice finds that                     Bulgaria, did not apply in that country or in the country
a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the                        of permanent residence for a temporary residence author-
Treaty, that State is required to take the measures necessary to                   isation to be issued to that end and await the decision
comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice.                                  thereon in that country before coming to the Netherlands
                                                                                and therefore failed not satisfy the requirement laid down
                                                                                by Article 3.71(1) of the Vb 2000?
                                                                             2.    Does the fact that, unlike the situation concerned in the
Notwithstanding the repeated assurances of the Italian Govern-                     judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 September 2001
ment that the implementation of Directive 93/104 (2) into
                                                                                in Case C-257/99 [Barkoci and Malik], the foreigner
Italian law was imminent, it must be found that Italy has
                                                                                concerned already intended to work as a self-employed
not yet notified the Commission of the national measures
                                                                                person before leaving Bulgaria for the Netherlands and
implementing that directive. It should be noted that, pursuant
                                                                                failed to apply for such authorisation in Bulgaria despite
to Article 18(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 93/104, those measures
                                                                                having an opportunity to do so have any bearing on the
should have been notified by 23 November 1996.
                                                                                answer to the first question?
In those circumstances, the Commission must find that the
Italian Republic has failed to adopt the measures necessary to
comply with the judgment of the Court of 9 March 2000 in
Case C-386/98, and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
under Article 228 EC.                                                        Genova — Sezione Lavoro by order of that Court of
                                                                             28 January 2003 in the case of Mario Cigliola and Others
                                                                                against Ferrovie dello Stato SpA
Pursuant to Article 228(2) EC, the Commission requests that
the Court impose a penalty on the Italian Republic in the sum                                         (Case C-59/03)
of EUR 238 950 for each day’s delay in complying with the
Court’s judgment in Case C-386/98, with effect from the date                                          (2003/C 83/21)
of judgment in the present case.
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000, p. 2.                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova
( 2) OJ L 307 of 13.12.1993, p. 18.                                          — Sezione Lavoro (District Court, Genoa — Employment
                                                                             Division) of 28 January 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                             on 13 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                             Mario Cigliola and Others against Ferrovie dello Stato SpA on
                                                                             the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.4.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 83/13
Does national legislation (Decree-Law No 324 of 10 September               Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
1998, unconverted, and Article 43(7) of Law No 448 of                      of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
23 December 1998) which, by setting aside the ordinary law                                              Belgium
that permits continuation of the employment relationship,
allows an undertaking (Ferrovie dello Stato SpA) to dismiss its
older employees — thereby creating a situation in which the
undertaking can save on labour costs (salaries and insurance                                        (Case C-65/03)
obligations), with an immediate resulting burden to the State
in the form of reduced contribution revenue and the payment
of pensions to dismissed workers — fall within the concept of
                                                                                (2003/C 83/23)
aid that is incompatible with the common market within the
meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty?
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                       Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg.
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-63/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2003/C 83/22)
                                                                           —     declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
                                                                                ensure that holders of secondary education qualifications
                                                                                obtained in the other Member States may be admitted
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                     to higher education organised by the Belgian French-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       speaking Community on the same terms as holders of
14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                               the CESS (certificat d’enseignement secondaire supérieur),
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.                            the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 12, 149 and 150 EC.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
1.     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       comply with Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European
       Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on
       the legal protection of designs, or in any event by failing
       to forward those provisions to the Commission, the                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that directive;
2.     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              The Belgian authorities in question require holders of diplomas
                                                                           and qualifications attesting to the completion of secondary
                                                                           studies in other Member States (with the exception of the
                                                                           Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg), who are nationals of other
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Member States and who wish to be admitted to higher
                                                                           education in Belgium, to sit and pass an aptitude test unless,
                                                                           by way of an additional requirement, they are able to
The period within which the directive had to be transposed                 demonstrate that they have been granted admission in their
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                country of origin to the desired university faculty without an
                                                                           entrance examination or other form of restriction of admission.
                                                                           The Commission considers that this practice is discriminatory
( 1) Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council      and contrary to the articles cited in the above claims.
     of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998
     L 289, p. 28).


title: Case T-226/13 P: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Letter concerning compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal sent to the appellant’s representative in the appeal brought against that judgment — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/14

         Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-226/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Letter concerning compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal sent to the appellant’s representative in the appeal brought against that judgment - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
   2013/C 359/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000 pursuant to Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-386/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings initiated by Siegfried János Schneider (Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope — Legal capacity of natural persons — Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property — Scope — Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/35

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings initiated by Siegfried János Schneider
   (Case C-386/12) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Legal capacity of natural persons - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Scope - Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State)
   2013/C 344/61
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Siegfried János Schneider

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Sofiyski gradski sad — Interpretation of Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Natural person lacking full legal capacity in accordance with the law of his Member State — Application submitted by that person in another Member State, with his guardian’s approval, for permission to sell immovable property inherited in that State — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated — Whether Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 applies in non-contentious proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and, in particular, Article 22(1) thereof must be interpreted as not applying to non-contentious proceedings by which a national of a Member State who has been declared to be lacking full legal capacity and placed under guardianship in accordance with the law of that State applies to a court in another Member State for authorisation to sell his share of a property situated in that other Member State, in view of the fact that such proceedings are concerned with the ‘legal capacity of natural persons’ for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, a matter which falls outside the material scope of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-249/12 and T-269/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2015 — Vestel Iberia and Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Post-clearance entry in the accounts and remission of import duties — Colour television receivers originating in Turkey — Application for remission of customs duties submitted by two importers — Commission’s referral of the national authorities to a decision concerning another importer — Article 871(2) and (6) and Article 905(2) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2015 — Vestel Iberia and Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-249/12 and T-269/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Customs union - Post-clearance entry in the accounts and remission of import duties - Colour television receivers originating in Turkey - Application for remission of customs duties submitted by two importers - Commission’s referral of the national authorities to a decision concerning another importer - Article 871(2) and (6) and Article 905(2) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 138/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Vestel Iberia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (Case T-249/12); and Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (Madrid) (Case T-269/12) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Joins Cases T-249/12 and T-269/12 for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2)

               Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

               3)

               Orders Vestel Iberia, SL and Makro autoservicio mayorista SA to pay the costs;

               4)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 24 September 2004 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 24 September 2004 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede
   (Case C-415/04)
   (2004/C 284/22)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 24 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 29 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede on the following question:
   Must Article 13.A(1)(g), (h) and (i) of the Sixth Directive (1) be construed as meaning that the service provided as described above, consisting in intermediary activities in connection with the care of children under school age and of schoolchildren outside of school hours in the homes of host parents, falls to be regarded as a service covered by one or more of those provisions?

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Case T-379/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Allocation of free greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Commission decision determining the product benchmarks to apply for the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances — Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/23

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission
   (Case T-379/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Allocation of free greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 - Commission decision determining the product benchmarks to apply for the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances - Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissible)
   2012/C 217/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisberg, Germany); Rogesa — Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Salzgitter Flachstaht Gmbh (Salzgitter, Germany); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisberg); and voestalpine Stahl GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Hermann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH, Rogesa — Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, Salzgitter Flachstaht Gmbh, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, and voestalpine Stahl GmbH are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.