title: Case T-514/08: Action brought on 26 November 2006 — Laboratorios Byly v OHIM — Ginis (BILLY'S Products)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/35

         Action brought on 26 November 2006 — Laboratorios Byly v OHIM — Ginis (BILLY'S Products)
   (Case T-514/08)
   (2009/C 19/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Byly, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernandez-Villa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasileios Ginis (Athens, Greece)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The contested decision be annulled;

               —

               the defendant be ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vasileios Ginis.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘BILLY'S products’ (application No 4.215.273) for goods in Class 3.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Byly.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘BYLY’ (application No 156.216) for goods in Class 3, and ‘byly’ (application No 2.604.015) for goods in Classes 3 and 5, and services in Class 35.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-61/00 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one part, and the Commission of the European Communities of the other part

text:
C 163/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
— Defective application of Article 253 EC: The assumption               Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen AG
    that sufficient reasons are stated for the contested Com-           and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the judgment
    mission decision is based on a misrepresentation of the             delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber
    content of that decision by the Court of First Instance.            (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        the European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and
                                                                        T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(b) EC: The applicants submit            Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one part, and the
    that neither the wording nor the sense and purpose of               Commission of the European Communities of the other
    Article 87(3)(b) EC justify the conclusion by the Court of                                         part
    First Instance that the collapse of the former nationalised
    economy of the GDR in the course of reunification did not
    lead to a ‘serious disturbance in the economy’ of Germany.                                  (Case C-61/00 P)
    In view of the fact that German reunification necessitates
    the economic reconstruction of almost a third of German
    territory, the applicants maintain that it is unjustifiable to                              (2000/C 163/12)
    exclude that serious economic disturbance, the overcoming
    of which requires extraordinary financial sacrifices from
    the whole Federal Republic, from the scope of Article
    87(3)(b) EC.                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
                                                                        1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
— Infringement of Articles 87(3) and 88 EC: The applicants              Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 (1) between Freistaat Sachsen,
    submit that the contested judgment infringes Articles 87            Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one
    and 88 EC by holding that the aid granted to the VW                 part, and the Commission of the European Communities, of
    group required prior notification and should have been              the other part, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    comprehensively examined by the Commission in accord-               European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen
    ance with Article 87 EC. They maintain that that is legally         AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, represented by Michael
    incorrect, since the aid formed part of an approved aid             Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Rue de la Loi 99-101, B-1040 Brussels,
    programme. The Court of First Instance misunderstood                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    the legal significance of the reservation in the Commission         Bonn & Schmidt, Rechtsanwalte, 7 Val Ste Croix, L-1371
    decision approving the aid programme that the special               Luxembourg.
    rules for particular sectors of industry had to be complied
    with, and wrongly assumed that approval of the aid
    programme did not extend to the motor vehicle industry.             The appellants claim that the Court should:
    That reservation applied only to rules in force. The
    Community Framework on State Aid to the Motor Vehicle
    Industry had expired on 31 December. In respect of the              — set aside the contested judgment in its entirety;
    Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission proposal
    to extend the framework had not been approved on
    22 March 1991, the date on which the disputed aids were             — uphold the claims at first instance, in so far as they seek:
    granted. It was not until April 1991, after the grant of the
    aid, that the Federal Government agreed to the extension
    of the framework. Therefore, the duty to give individual                1. annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision K (96)
    notification, which had its legal basis only in the (expired)               1844 endg. of 26 June 1996, save for the first indent
    framework, could not apply to aid to the motor vehicle                      thereof, referring to special write-offs with a nominal
    industry from approved aid programmes. The aid fell                         value of DEM 51.67 million; and in respect of the first
    under the rules approved by the Commission for aid                          indent, referring to special write-offs with a nominal
    programmes, and in particular under the Joint Task                          value of DEM 51.67 million, declare the substance of
    between the Federal Government and the Länder of                            the dispute exhausted in that respect;
    improving the regional economic structure (Nineteenth
    Outline Plan) and the German law on investment allow-
    ances (Investitionszulagengesetz). Since the aid fell under             2. annulment of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision K
    approved programmes, it was not subject to comprehen-                       (96) 1844 endg. of 26 June 1996 in so far as the
    sive examination in accordance with Article 87 EC, but                      combined effective aid intensity, expressed in gross
    only to limited examination as existing aid.                                grant equivalent, is limited to 22.3 % for Mosel II and
                                                                                20.8 % for Chemnitz II;
                                                                            3. annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision K (96)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.                                                        1844 endg. of 26 June 1996 in so far as the amount
                                                                                of investment grants declared compatible with the
                                                                                common market is limited to DEM 418.7 million.
                                                                        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 163/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999
                                                                          in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                           for Finances
C-57/00 P.
                                                                                (Case C-102/00)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/14)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 28 April
                                                                          1999, received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Welthgrove BV against
                                                                          Secretary of State for Finances on the following questions:
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                       1. In light of the judgment in Polysar (1), particularly para-
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          graphs 13 and 14 thereof, where a parent company
                                                                               involves itself in the management of a subsidiary, is the
                           (Case C-84/00)                                      receipt of dividends from that subsidiary to be deemed to
                                                                               constitute consideration for such involvement within the
                                                                               meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (2)?
                          (2000/C 163/13)
                                                                          2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does
                                                                               the mere fact that the appellant involves itself in the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                               management of its subsidiary companies, in the manner
Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                               described in paragraph 14 of the Polysar judgment, mean
European Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
                                                                               that the appellant is to be deemed a taxable person within
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                               the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          3. If the answer to the first or second question is affirmative,
                                                                               does such involvement come within the exception of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say within
                                                                               the transactions mentioned therein?
— declare that, by failing to allow the marketing within
     France of works made of precious metals which come                   (1) Case C-60/90 [1991] ECR I-3111.
     from other Member States and which indicate a standard               (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     of fineness of ‘999 parts per thousand’, despite the fact                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     that that standard is commonly used in commercial                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, Article 28 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The Commission considers that the exclusion by the French                                           (Case C-103/00)
legislation (1) of a standard of fineness of 999 parts per
thousand, in relation to both works made from gold and                                             (2000/C 163/15)
works made from silver and platinum, cannot be justified
either on grounds of consumer protection or on grounds of
fair trading.                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
(1) In the present case, Articles 521 and 522 of the Code Général des
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
    Impôts (General Tax Code), as amended by Law 94-6.
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.


title: Case C-17/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 January 2016 — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 January 2016 — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects
   (Case C-17/16)
   (2016/C 090/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL

      Respondent: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

      Question referred

   Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of 26 October 2005 (1) and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of 15 March 2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that a national of a third State who is in the international transit area of an airport is not subject to the obligation to make a declaration under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of 26 October 2005, or, on the contrary, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that that national is subject to that obligation by virtue of having crossed an external border of the Community at one of the border crossing points referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of 15 March 2006?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9).

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


title: Case C-7/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Beatriz Salvador García, v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of work done for another State )

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Beatriz Salvador García, v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-7/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)
   (2008/C 22/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellants: Beatriz Salvador García, (represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Dominguez Peréz, A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, J. Gutierrez Gisbert, J. Rivas and M. Canal, abogados)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Salvador García v Commission (T-205/02), dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 27 March 2002 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Salvador García to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2003.


title: Case C-147/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — General principles of European Union law — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2000/78/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘pay’ — Exclusions — Occupational pension scheme in the form of a supplementary retirement pension for former employees of a local authority and their survivors — Method of calculating that pension favouring married recipients over those living in a registered life partnership — Discrimination based on sexual orientation)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
   (Case C-147/08) (1)

   (Equal treatment in employment and occupation - General principles of European Union law - Article 157 TFEU - Directive 2000/78/EC - Scope - Concept of ‘pay’ - Exclusions - Occupational pension scheme in the form of a supplementary retirement pension for former employees of a local authority and their survivors - Method of calculating that pension favouring married recipients over those living in a registered life partnership - Discrimination based on sexual orientation)
   2011/C 194/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jürgen Römer

      Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the principle of equal treatment, Article 141 EC, and Articles 1, 2, 3(1)(c) and (3) of and recital 22 in the preamble to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Scope of the directive — Exclusion of payments of any kind made by state schemes or similar, including state social security or social protection schemes — Exclusion of national laws on marital status and the benefits dependent thereon — Occupational pension scheme in the form of a supplementary old-age pension for former employees of a local authority and their survivors — Method of calculation of the pension more favourable to married beneficiaries than to those living in a registered civil partnership

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation is to be interpreted as meaning that supplementary retirement pensions such as those paid to former employees of the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg and their survivors on the basis of the Law of the Land of Hamburg on supplementary retirement and survivors’ pensions for employees of the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Erstes Ruhegeldgesetz der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg), as amended on 30 May 1995, which constitute pay within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU, do not fall outside the material scope of the Directive either on account of Article 3(3) thereof or on account of recital 22 in the preamble thereto;

               2.

               Article 1 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78 preclude a provision of national law such as Paragraph 10(6) of that Law of the Land of Hamburg, under which a pensioner who has entered into a registered life partnership receives a supplementary retirement pension lower than that granted to a married, not permanently separated, pensioner, if

                           —

                           in the Member State concerned, marriage is reserved to persons of different gender and exists alongside a registered life partnership such as that provided for by the Law on registered life partnerships (Gesetz über die Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) of 16 February 2001, which is reserved to persons of the same gender, and

                           —

                           there is direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation because, under national law, that life partner is in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of a married person as regards that pension. It is for the referring court to assess the comparability, focusing on the respective rights and obligations of spouses and persons in a registered life partnership, as governed within the corresponding institutions, which are relevant taking account of the purpose of and the conditions for the grant of the benefit in question

               3.

               Should Paragraph 10(6) of the Law of the Land of Hamburg on supplementary retirement and survivors’ pensions for employees of the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, as amended on 30 May 1995, constitute discrimination within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2000/78, the right to equal treatment could be claimed by an individual such as the applicant in the main proceedings at the earliest after the expiry of the period for transposing the Directive, namely from 3 December 2003, and it would not be necessary to wait for that provision to be made consistent with European Union law by the national legislature.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Ezzedine and Others v Council (Cases T-131/11, T-132/11, T-137/11, T-139/11 to T-141/11, T-144/11 to T-148/11 and T-182/11) (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Death of the applicant — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Ezzedine and Others v Council
   (Cases T-131/11, T-132/11, T-137/11, T-139/11 to T-141/11, T-144/11 to T-148/11 and T-182/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Death of the applicant - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 217/48
   Language of the cases: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ibrahim Ezzedine (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (Case T-131/11); Feh Lambert Kessé (Abidjan) (Case T-132/11); Georges Guiai Bi Poin (Abidjan) (Case T-137/11); Loba Emmanuel Patrice Gnango (Abidjan) (Case T-139/11); Badia Brice Guei (Abidjan) (Case T-140/11); Blé Brunot Dogbo (Abidjan) (Case T-141/11); Tiapé Edouard Kassarate (Abidjan) (Case T-144/11); Gagbei Faussignaux Vagba (Abidjan) (Case T-145/11); Claude Yoro (Abidjan) (Case T-146/11); Gogo Joachim Robe (Abidjan) (Case T-147/11); Philippe Mangou (Abidjan) (Case T-148/11); and Philippe Henry Dacoury-Tabley (Abidjan) (Case T-182/11) (represented by: in Cases T-132/11, T-137/11, T-139/11, T-140/11, T-141/11, T-146/11, T-147/11 and T-182/11, G. Collard; in Case T-131/11, initially by G. Collard, subsequently by F. Dressen and J.-Y. Dupeux; and, in Cases T-144/11, T-145/11 and T-148/11, by G. Collard and L. Aliot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and, in Cases T-131/11, T-132/11 and T-182/11, by G. Étienne, in Cases T-139/11 to T-141/11, by C. Fekete and, in Cases T-144/11 to T-148/11, by E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard and J.-P. Benoit, lawyers, in Cases T-132/11, T-137/11, T-140/11, T-141/11 and T-144/11 to T-148/11); and European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis and, in Cases T-137/11, T-139/11 to T-141/11 and T-144/11 to T-148/11, initially by E. Cujo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In Cases T-132/11, T-137/11, T-139/11 to T-141/11 and T-144/11 to T-148/11, applications for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in Case T-131/11, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 60), and, in Case T-182/11, application for annulment, first, of Decision 2011/71 and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 32).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-131/11, T-132/11, T-137/11, T-139/11 to T-141/11, T-144/11 to T-148/11 and T-182/11 are joined for the purposes of the order.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Ibrahim Ezzedine, Feh Lambert Kessé, Georges Guiai Bi Poin, Loba Emmanuel Patrice Gnango, Badia Brice Guei, Blé Brunot Dogbo, Tiapé Edouard Kassarate, Gagbei Faussignaux Vagba, Claude Yoro, Gogo Joachim Robe, Philippe Mangou and Philippe Henry Dacoury-Tabley.

               4.

               The Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark (Case C-467/98)

text:
C 71/8                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.3.1999
Finally, the United Kingdom authorities' allegation that                     agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector,
the ownership and control provision of the agreement is                      the Kingdom of Denmark acted in breach of the
preserved under Article 234 since it reproduces a clause                    EC Treaty, in particular Articles 5 and 52 thereof,
couched in similar terms which was contained in the                          and also contrary to the secondary law adopted
United Kingdom/United States air service agreement' of                       thereunder, in particular Council Regulation (EEC)
1946 cannot be accepted. Firstly, Article 234 does not                       No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air
apply to agreements concluded after the accession of the                     carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)
United Kingdom in 1973; this agreement was concluded                         of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air
thereafter, in 1977. Secondly, even were Article 234 able                    carriers to intra-Community routes, Council
to be invoked, quod non, Article 234 does not simply                         Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992
preserve previous agreements but rather, in its second                       on fares and rates for air services, Council
paragraph, obliges the Member State to take all                              Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2) of 24 July 1989,
appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities with the                    as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
Treaty and with the rules enacted pursuant thereto. The                      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
United Kingdom does not indicate the taking of any such                      conduct for computerised reservation systems, and
appropriate steps or endeavours whatsoever to amend the                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of
offending provisions and this notwithstanding the clear                      18 January 1993 on common rules for the
indication of the incompatibilities with the Treaty pointed                  allocation of slots at Community airports;
out by the Commission on several occasions.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
    access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
    routes (OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8).                                  Ð in the alternative, that, in so far as provisions
                                                                             retained from the 1944/1954 agreement are
                                                                             concerned, in the event that the 1995 agreement
                                                                             cannot be regarded as having radically amended
                                                                             and      thus    replaced      agreements     previously
                                                                             concluded, the Kingdom of Denmark infringed
                                                                             Article 234 of the EC Treaty by not rescinding
                                                                             provisions in the agreement which are
                                                                             incompatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                         Article 52, and with the secondary law adopted
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           thereunder, and by failing to adopt the necessary
                            Denmark                                          legal measures to that effect;
                        (Case C-467/98)
                         (1999/C 71/14)
                                                                   2. Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of
                                                                         the present proceedings.
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and
Hans Peter Hartvig, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal                 The pleas in law and main arguments in support are
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).
                                                                   (1 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        (2 ) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                   (3 ) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
                                                                   (4 ) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
                                                                   (5 ) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
1. Declare:
     Ð primarily, that, by having in 1995 individually
         negotiated, signed and concluded an Open Skies'


title: Case C-400/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — National legislation concerning the establishment of shopping centres in Catalonia — Restrictions — Justifications — Proportionality)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-400/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - National legislation concerning the establishment of shopping centres in Catalonia - Restrictions - Justifications - Proportionality)
   2011/C 152/02
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents, C. Fernández Vicién and A. Pereda Miquel, abogados)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg and R. Holdgaard, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Restrictions on the establishment of shopping centres — Licences

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC by adopting and/or by maintaining in force the following provisions:

                           —

                           Article 4(1) of Law 18/2005 on trading establishments (Ley 18/2005 de equipamientos comerciales) of 27 December 2005, in so far as it prohibits the opening of large retail establishments outside consolidated urban areas of a limited number of municipalities;

                           —

                           Articles 7 and 10(2) of the Annex to Decree 379/2006 approving the new sectoral territorial plan for trading establishments (Decreto 379/2006 por el que se aprueba el Plan territorial sectorial de equipamientos comerciales) of 10 October 2006, and Annex 1 thereto, in so far as those provisions restrict the opening of new hypermarkets to a limited number of districts and provide that such new hypermarkets are not to account for more than 9 % of estimated expenses for staple supplies and 7 % of estimated expenses for non-staple supplies;

                           —

                           the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Law 7/1996 on retail commerce (Ley 7/1996, de ordenación del comercio minorista) of 15 January 1996, Article 8 of Law 18/2005 on trading establishments of 27 December 2005 and Articles 31(4) and 33(2) of Decree 378/2006, implementing Law 18/2005 (Decreto 378/2006 por el que se desarolla la Ley 18/2005), of 10 October 2006, in so far as those provisions require the application of ceilings as regards market share and the impact on existing retail trade, above which it is impossible to open new large retail establishments and/or new medium-sized retail establishments; and

                           —

                           Article 26 of Decree 378/2006 implementing Law 18/2005 of 10 October 2006, in so far as in specifying the composition of the Comisión de Equipamientos Comerciales (Retail Facilities Committee) it ensures that existing retail trade is represented and fails to ensure that associations active in the field of environmental protection, or interest groups working towards consumer protection, are represented;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it concerns the compatibility with Article 43 EC of Article 33(5) and (7) of Decree 378/2006, implementing Law 18/2005, of 10 October 2006;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-523/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 20 November 2014  — Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV and Others

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 20 November 2014 — Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV and Others
   (Case C-523/14)
   (2015/C 034/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Gelderland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA

      Defendants: VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the complaint lodged by [the applicants] as a civil claimant, as referred to in Article 63 et seq. of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, given the manner in which it was lodged and the stage which the proceedings have reached, come within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 44/2001 (1)?
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Must Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that proceedings in a foreign (Belgian) court, within the meaning of that provision, must be deemed also to have been brought in a case in which a complaint involving a civil claimant has been lodged with a Belgian investigating judge and the preliminary judicial investigation has not yet been completed?

               3.

               If the answer is in the affirmative: at what stage of the case brought by the lodging of a complaint involving a civil claimant will proceedings be deemed to have been brought and/or the court be deemed to be seised for the purposes of the application of, respectively, Article 27(1) and Article 30 of Regulation No 44/2001?

               4.

               If the answer is in the negative: must Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a complaint involving a civil claimant can lead to proceedings subsequently being brought in a Belgian court within the meaning of that provision?

               5.

               If the answer is in the affirmative: at what stage will proceedings be deemed to have been brought and/or the court deemed to be seised for the purposes of the application of, respectively, Article 27(1) and Article 30 of Regulation No 44/2001?

               6.

               If a complaint involving a civil claimant has been lodged but that does not mean that, at the time of lodging, proceedings as referred to in Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 have yet been brought, and where, in the course of examination of the complaint lodged, proceedings may subsequently be brought with retroactive effect to the date of the lodging of the complaint, does Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 have the effect that the court seised of the matter after the complaint involving a civil claimant has been lodged with the Belgian court must stay its proceedings until such time as it has been established whether proceedings as referred to in Article 27(1) [of Regulation No 44/2001] have been brought in the Belgian court?

      (1)  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).


title: Case C-260/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 31 May 2007 — Pedro IV Servicios S.L. v Total España S.A.

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 31 May 2007 — Pedro IV Servicios S.L. v Total España S.A.
   (Case C-260/07)
   (2007/C 183/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pedro IV Servicios S.L.

      Defendant: Total España S.A.
   Questions referred
   Must Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 (1), which provides that ‘where the agreement relates to a service station which the supplier lets to the reseller, or allows the reseller to occupy on some other basis, in law or in facts, [then] exclusive purchasing obligations or prohibitions of competition indicated in this Title may, notwithstanding Paragraph 1(c), be imposed on the reseller for the whole period for which the reseller in fact operates on the premises’, be interpreted as referring to the situation in which the supplier/lessor initially owned the land and the installations, or on the contrary does the reference to the ‘letting’ of the service station cover all those titles which by operation of law give the supplier a proprietary right in the service station alone, with the consequence that the supplier can lease it to the owner of the land without being required to comply with the time limitations which the rules impose in respect of exclusive purchasing agreements?
   If Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 (2) of 22 December 1999 is applicable to the present case, must the provision in Article 5 that the exemption [in Article 2 of the regulation] is not to apply if the duration of the exclusive purchasing agreement exceeds five years, although ‘the time limitation of five years shall not apply where the contract goods or services are sold by the buyer from premises and land owned by the supplier or leased by the supplier from third parties not connected with the buyer, provided that the duration of the non-compete obligation does not exceed the period of occupancy of the premises and land by the buyer’, be interpreted, where it mentions leasing, as referring to a situation in which the supplier/lessor also initially owned the land and the installations, or on the contrary does the reference to the leasing of the service station cover all those titles which may by operation of law give the supplier a proprietary right in the service station alone, with the consequence that the supplier can lease it to the owner of the land without being required to comply with the time limitations which the rules impose in respect of exclusive purchasing agreements?
   Must the prohibition of the indirect fixing of purchase or selling prices laid down in Article 81(1)(a) EC and the statement in recital 8 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 that ‘further restrictive obligations and in particular those which limit the reseller's choice of customers or his freedom to determine his prices and conditions of sale cannot be exempted under this Regulation’ resale price fixing not being among the other restrictions on competition permitted in Article 11 of that regulation, be interpreted as including any form of restriction of the reseller's freedom to fix the retail price, such as where the supplier fixes the distribution margin of the operator of the service station, by fixing the price of the fuel which he supplies to the reseller on the most advantageous terms agreed with other service stations that may be established in Barcelona, provided that the price will never be higher than the average price fixed by other suppliers with a significant presence on the market, then adding the minimum margin which is thought appropriate and thus arriving at the PVP (retail price), which the supplier does not expressly impose but which it recommends be charged?
   Must the prohibition of the indirect fixing of purchase or selling prices laid down in Article 81(1)(a) EC, and the inclusion in Article 4(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 of resale price maintenance as a particularly serious (‘hardcore’) restriction on competition, be interpreted as including any form of restriction of the reseller's freedom to fix the retail price, such as where the supplier fixes the distribution margin of the operator of the service station, by fixing the price of the fuel which he supplies to the reseller on the most advantageous terms agreed with other service stations that may be established in Barcelona, provided that the price will never be higher than the average price fixed by other suppliers with a significant presence on the market, then adding the minimum margin which is thought appropriate and thus arriving at the PVP (retail price), which the supplier does not expressly impose but which it recommends be charged?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Syndicat National de l'Industrie Cimentière (SFIC) v. Commission of the European Communities (Case T-36/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 137/23
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Syndicat National                  Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Van Megen Sports
de l'lndustrie Cimentiere ( SFIC ) v. Commission of the                  Group BV against the Commission of the European
                       European Communities                                                          Communities
                           ( Case T-36/95 )                                                       ( Case T-49/95 )
                             ( 95/C 137/57 )                                                        ( 95/C 137/58 )
                    (Language of the case: French                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                         An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                      Instance of the European Communities on 21 February
1995 by the Syndicat National de l'lndustrie Cimentiere                  1995 by Van Megen Sports Group BV, whose registered
( SFIC ), whose registered office is in Paris, represented by            office is in Eindhoven (Netherlands ), represented by A. W.
Edouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of the Paris Bar,              Willems, Boskamp & Willems Chambers, Eindhoven, with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                an address for service in Luxembourg at the Registry of the
of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde.                                       Court of First Instance .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul in whole or in part, Articles 1 , 2 , 3 ( 2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ), declare null and void the Commission's Decision of
      5 and 9 of the Commission 's Decision of 30 November
                                                                         21 December 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
      1994 in so far as those articles concern the SFIC,                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/32.948 — IV/34.590 :
                                                                         Tretorn and others ) (*).
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In support of its application the applicant puts forward the             Breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of a rule
following pleas in law:                                                  of law which must be complied with when applying the
                                                                         Treaty.
  I. Breaches of formal and procedural requirements :
                                                                         In its abovementioned decision the Commission imposed a
       1 . During the administrative procedure prior to the              fine on the applicant on the ground that it infringed
           adoption of the Decision: the applicant maintains in          Article 85 ( 1 ) by participating in the implementation in the
           particular that the statement of objections failed to         Netherlands of the reporting and investigation of parallel
           comply with the obligation to specify individually            imports in order to enforce Tretorn Sports Ltd's policy of
           the objections raised and the evidence tendered               preventing parallel imports and exports .
           against it and also that it was unable to obtain full
           access to the file .                                          The applicant considers that the conclusion reached by the
                                                                         Commission in its decision cannot be supported by the
       2 . As regards the adoption of the Decision: the                  evidence available to it, that that conclusion is insufficiently
           applicant considers that the Decision contains                reasoned by the Commission and that insufficient
           several defects relating to the circumstances of its          arguments are given justifying ( the level of the ) actual
           adoption, to its form and to the procedure                    penalty ( in proportion to that of the other parties
           followed :                                                    concerned ).
            ( a ) breach of the principle of collegiality;                (') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 45 .
            ( b ) use of excluded documents :
            ( c ) condemnation of the applicant on the basis of
                  objections not expressly mentioned in the
                  statement of objections;                                Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Castle Cement Ltd
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
            ( d ) use of new evidence ;
                                                                                ( Case T-56/95 )
            ( e ) defective statement of reasons .                                                   ( 95/C 137/59 )
 II . Inadequate evidence : as regards both the charge of an
       agreement to respect home markets and the other                                    (Language of the case: English)
       infringements charged, the Commission has not proved
       to the requisite legal standard that the applicant, as             An action against the Commission of the European
       such, was involved , or that the conduct at the factual            Communities was brought before the Court of First
       level that was attributable to it exceed the lawful bounds         Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
       of its functions as a trade association and/or approved            1995 by Castle Cement Ltd represented by Mr Nicholas
       statistical body .                                                 Forwood , Mr John Cook, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
                                                                          Boite Postale 39 , L-2010 Luxembourg.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/37

         Removal from the register of Case C-303/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/107)
   By order of 6 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-303/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-260/09 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2009 by Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2009 in Case T-18/03: CD-Contact Data GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/24

         Appeal brought on 13 July 2009 by Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2009 in Case T-18/03: CD-Contact Data GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-260/09 P)
   2009/C 220/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) (represented by: J. K. de Pree, advocaat, E.N.M. Raedts, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment under appeal insofar as the Court of First Instance dismissed the action of Contact Data for annulment of the Decision;

               —

               annul the Decision at least as far as it concerns CD Contact;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the Judgment under appeal insofar as it concerns dismissal of the action of Contact Data for annulment of the Decision and refer the case back to the CFI;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the CFI has made a wrong legal categorisation of the facts by concluding that an illegal agreement existed within the meaning of Article 81 (1) EC between Nintendo of Europe GmbH (‘Nintendo’) and Contact Data, without beforehand considering whether this agreement was aimed at limiting active parallel trade or passive parallel trade.
   The distribution agreement, which was perfectly legal, prohibited active parallel trade while allowing for passive parallel trade. Nevertheless, the CFI concluded that it derived from several faxes from Contact Data that it participated in the information exchange system of Nintendo to denounce parallel import in violation of Article 81 (1) EC. This conclusion must be regarded a wrong legal categorisation of the facts, or at least a breach of the obligation to state reasons, as the CFI failed to establish whether the conduct related to passive or to active parallel imports.
   The CFI has distorted evidence by considering that the documents discussed in paragraphs 56 to 68 of the Judgment under appeal had an illegal object. In these documents Contact Data complained about exports to Belgium in violation of its exclusivity, it used price information of import as a bargaining tool to obtain a better price from Nintendo and made reference to ‘grey imports’. To conclude that they related to something other than a restriction on active sales into the exclusive territory of Contact Data or the manner in which Contact Data put pressure on its supplier to lower its own purchase price would be at odds with the wording of these documents.
   The CFI made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the documents discussed constituted sufficient evidence of the existence of an agreement within the meaning of Article 81 (1) EC. In the absence of direct documentary evidence of an agreement, the CFI should have established the existence of concurrence of wills to limit parallel trade, which required a unilateral policy adopted by Nintendo to achieve an anti-competitive goal, constituted as an implied or express invitation to Contact Data to fulfil this goal jointly, and at least tacit acquiescence by Contact Data. The fulfilment of these criteria has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the CFI.
   Moreover, the CFI did not correctly establish that Contact Data acquiesced in the policy adopted unilaterally by Nintendo. In particular in the CFI wrongfully declined to consider the relevance of the actual exports of goods by Contact Data by referring to case law relating to horizontal agreements, whereas such actual exports can, according to settled case law, in the case of vertical agreements, call into question the acquiescence by the distributor in an illegal policy to hinder parallel trade.


title: Case T-461/17: Action brought on 25 July 2017 — TN v ENISA

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/31

         Action brought on 25 July 2017 — TN v ENISA
   (Case T-461/17)
   (2017/C 347/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TN (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul ENISA’s decision of 25 November 2016, withdrawing its offer of employment, according to which the applicant was to be appointed to the position of head of the corporate services and stakeholder relations unit;

               —

               annul ENISA’s decision of 20 April 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               award the applicant damages for the material and non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order ENISA to bear the entire costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed its contractual obligations vis-à-vis the applicant.

                           —

                           The applicant alleges that the offer could not be withdrawn as a contract had already been concluded and it contests the defendant’s arguments to the contrary.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging undue treatment of the applicant’s personal data and infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union, of the duty of care, and of the right to good administration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

                           —

                           The applicant was not heard before the contested decision to withdraw the offer of employment was taken.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establishment — Dentists — Residence conditions)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 161/5
1.    Orders Vetroresina Spa (TVR) to pay the Commission of the            1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to
      European Communities the sum of EUR 77 558,80, together                    the supply of services consisting in making road infrastructure
      with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990 until the            available to users on payment of a toll, the Kingdom of Spain
      debt is paid in full;                                                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(3)(a) of the
                                                                                Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
3.    Dismisses Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR)’s counterclaim;                 basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 96/95/EC
                                                                                of 20 December 1996;
4.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (M) to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 18 January 2001
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                                     of 18 January 2001
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Application                                        ties v Italian Republic (1)
               of a reduced rate to motorway tolls)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            (2001/C 161/09)                                Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establish-
                                                                                ment — Dentists — Residence conditions)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and C. Gómez de la Cruz) v
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) — application                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value                                    in the European Court Reports)
added tax to the supply of services consisting in making road
infrastructure available to users, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth             In Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities
Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                       (Agents: F.P. Ruggen Laderchi and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) — application for a
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 declaration that:
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 1977, p. 1), as amended by
Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 338,                  —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional
1996, p. 89) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                     Head of State of 13 September 1946, despite amendment
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,                     by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November 1991, to
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,                          remain in force in such a way as to leave dentists
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                      practising in Italy still subject to a de facto residence
on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                                 requirement,
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/6                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
—      by maintaining in force Article 15 in Title IV of Law                  1.   Must Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) on waste
       No 409 of 24 July 1985, which refers to Article 1 of Law                    (the Framework Directive) be interpreted as permitting a
       No 1398 of 14 December 1964, having the effect that                         process for processing waste in which more than one
       only dentists of Italian nationality may remain registered                  operation is performed, as described above, to be assessed
       as practitioners upon transferring their residence to                       as a whole?
       another Member State,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               2.   If so, does the process concerned constitute recovery
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                         within the meaning of R1, R3 and R5 of Annex 11 B to
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                             the Framework Directive if it results in the complete use
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-                        of the waste employed therein?
ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  3.a. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, is the
given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                  extent (expressed as calorific values) to which the waste
                                                                                contributes to the incineration process or the extent
1.     Declares that:
                                                                                (expressed as the level of material re-used) to which the
       —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional              ash residues from that waste contribute to the production
             Head of State of 13 September 1946 on the reconstitution              process relevant as regards the classification of each
             of the associations of the health-care professions and the            individual operation as recovery or disposal (R1, R3 and
             regulation of the practice of those professions, despite              R5 and D10 respectively)?
             amendment by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November
             1991 on the rules for the re-organisation of the pharma-         3.b. If so, on the basis of which criteria is it necessary to
             ceutical sector, to remain in force in such a way as to leave         assess whether or not the contribution is sufficient for
             dentists practising in Italy still subject to a de facto              classification as recovery? In the absence of Community
             residence requirement,                                                criteria in this respect is it possible to apply national
       —     by maintaining in force Article 15 of Law No 409 of                   criteria?
             24 July 1985 on the profession of dental surgeon and on
             the provisions concerning the right of establishment and the     4.   If one operation must be classified as recovery and
             freedom to provide services of dentists who are nationals of          another operation as disposal, how must the process be
             Member States of the European Communities, which refers               regarded as a whole?
             to Article 1 of Law No 1398 of 14 December 1964
             amending and supplementing Law No 736 of 10 July
             1960 as regards the registration of Italian members of the
                                                                              (1) OJ L 194, 1975, p. 39.
             health-care professions residing abroad, having the effect
             that only dentists of Italian nationality may remain regis-
             tered with their professional association upon transferring
             their residence to another Member State,
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
       Articles 39 EC and 43 EQ;
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                     Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                              Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 1 February
                                                                              2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                              of the European Communities in Case T-1/99 between
                                                                              T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                                         European Communities
by order of 13 March 2001 in the case of Verol Recycling
Limburg B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimte-
                  lijke Ordening en Milieubeheer                                                      (Case C-122/01 P)
                            (Case C-116/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/12)
                            (2001/C 161/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2001
European Communities by order of 13 March 2001 by the                         by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Raad van State (Council of State), which was received at the                  European Communities in Case T-1/99 between T. Port GmbH
Court Registry on 15 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                  & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities
the case of Verol Recycling Limburg B.V. and Minister van                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on                     Communities on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG,
the following questions:                                                      represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.


title: Case C-32/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2016 — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2016 — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited
   (Case C-32/16)
   (2016/C 165/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Dresden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ute Wunderlich

      Defendant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

      Question referred

   Is there a flight cancellation within the meaning of Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where a scheduled flight departed on time and arrived at its scheduled destination with a delay of not more 3 hours but with an unscheduled stopover?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-555/13: Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/18

         Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)
   (Case T-555/13)
   2013/C 377/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L.-É. Balleydier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España, SA (La Guardia, Spain)

      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 14 August 2013 given in Case R 2588/2011-2;

               —

               Grant Community trade mark application No 8 837 379 for the word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 33;

               —

               Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 837 379

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 237 875 of the figurative mark for ‘all kinds of wine except sparkling wine and sherry’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 95 020 of the figurative mark for ‘any class of wines except sparkling wine and sherry wine’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 1 508 304 of the word mark ‘IMPERIAL’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) CTMR and Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995.


title: Case T-243/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT — Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA — Partial refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT)
   (Case T-243/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT - Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J.Krenzel and S.Beckmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Proma SAL (Villacañas, Spain).
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1059/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-461/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-461/15)
   (2015/C 398/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Which information belongs to the relevant information within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU? (1) Is the restriction to be understood qualitatively or quantitatively; is, in particular, information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation which does not directly result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU and does not trigger any obligation to submit under Article 24(2) of Decision 2011/278/EU also included?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU to be interpreted as prohibiting the Member State from requiring the operator to provide information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of the installation which does not result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case F-16/13: Action brought on 10 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/40

         Action brought on 10 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-16/13)
   2013/C 108/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the JSIS insofar as it confirms the terms of the draft decision rejecting the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the disease from which the wife of the applicant, a former staff member, died.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of 23 March 2012 insofar as it confirms the terms of the draft decision of 23 June 1995;

               —

               insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 29 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 6 July 2012 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-204/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the case of Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Culture

text:
C 227/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.8.2001
6.    Prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC)                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of                   Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo Conten-
      the Council of 16 November 2000, which amended                       cioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda, by
      Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, was                    order of 3 April 2001 in the case of Isabel Parras Medina
      there any provision of Community law which provided                  and Adelina Paras Medina v Conséjeria de Agricultura de
      for the suspension of the period of three years for post-                  la Junta, de Comunidades de Castilla-La-Mancha
      clearance recovery as soon as an appeal is lodged?
                                                                                (Case C-208/01)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
    post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which                                 (2001/C 227/16)
    have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods
    entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).                                     European Communities by order of 3 April 2001 by the
(2) Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament                Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo
    and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
                                                                           Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda
    Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Cus-
    toms Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).                                      (Second section of the Administrative-law Chamber of the
                                                                           High Court of Justice, Castilla-La-Mancha) which was received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Paras Medina v
                                                                           Conséjeria de Agricultura de la Junta de Comunidades de
                                                                           Castilla-La-Mancha on the following questions:
                                                                           1.    Must the scope of the concept of force majeure used in
                                                                                Article 12 of Regulation No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                         altered so as to equate to that of unforeseen and
richtshof by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the                         compelling circumstances, as described in this decision,
case of Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for                        of such a kind that negligence as regards compliance with
                 Education, Science and Culture                                  the time-limit in question would not be regarded as such?
                                                                           2.    Are the consequences provided for in the abovemen-
                         (Case C-204/01)                                         tioned Article 12 in the nature of a sanction or a penalty
                                                                                and, if that is the a case, does that fact contribute to the
                                                                                need to alter the scope of the said concept of force majeure?
                         (2001/C 227/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof of 25 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
16 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for Education,
Science and Culture on the following question:                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
                                                                           tentgericht by order of that court of 10 April 2001 in the
                                                                                case of Henkel KGaA
Are Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC (1) of 25 July
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                                            (Case C-218/01)
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to                                     (2001/C 227/17)
provide services, as amended by the Act of Accession, Official
Journal C 241 of 29 August 1994; p. 218, Article 12 EC and                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Article 39 EC, and Article 1; read in conjunction with Article 3           European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
and Article 9, of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate            (Federal Patents Court) of 10 April 2001 which was received
the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                 at the Court Registry on 29 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  in the case of Henkel KGaA on the following questions on the
qualifications, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under          interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council
which admission to a training course in dentistry covered by               Directive 89/104/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC requires a degree in                   the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
medicine obtained at an Austrian university?                               1989 L 40, p. 1):
                                                                           1.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which
(1) OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.                                                         consist of the packaging of goods which are normally
(2) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.                                                         traded in packaged form (such as liquids, for example) is
                                                                                the packaging of the goods to be equated with the shape
                                                                                of the goods for the purpose of trade mark law in such a
                                                                                way that


title: Case C-641/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/6

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-641/13 P)
   2014/C 31/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present appeal and partially set aside the judgment of 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission;

               —

               partially annul, in accordance with the terms indicated, Commission Decision C(2006) 5102 of 20 October 2006, reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects bearing the reference 2001.ES.16.C.PE.050 and concerning the clearance of the hydrographical basin of Júcar (Spain), in so far as it is considered therein that the use of experience as an award criterion constitutes an irregularity; and

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         Error of law as regards the finding that the use of experience as an award criterion is contrary to Article 30 of Directive 93/37

       (1). That provision does not preclude the use of criteria linked to the contractor’s experience at the time when a contract is awarded. On the contrary, the tenderer’s experience may be assessed, provided that it is used as a criterion that is not intended to measure the tenderer’s suitability, that it is kept distinct from the solvency requirement and that it is intended to determine the most economically advantageous offer by demonstrating a link between the subject-matter of the contract and the quality of its performance.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).


title: Order of the Court of 12 May 2014 in Case E-8/12 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of decisions of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility)

text:
               12.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/16

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 12 May 2014
   in Case E-8/12
   Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of decisions of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility)
   (2015/C 49/09)
   In Case E-8/12, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for annulment of three EFTA Surveillance Authority Decisions, as notified on 18 May 2012, 23 May 2012, and 2 July 2012, denying access to specific documents in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak – an antitrust infringement case) and in ESA Case No 68736 (DB Schenker – a public access request case concerning the antitrust infringement case above), and also denying access to the procedures for handling public access requests and administering case files, under the Rules on Access to Documents (‘RAD 2008’) established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL of 27 June 2008 (unpublished), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, made an order on 12 May 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 9 May 2012 as notified on 18 May 2012 (Event No 633455) to the extent that it concerns access to a statement of content in ESA Case No 34250.

               2.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 9 May 2012 as notified on 18 May 2012 (Event No 633455) to the extent that it concerns access to ‘a letter dated or received on 13 July 2010 from Norway Post’ and ‘minutes from meetings between ESA, including its president, and Norway Post and/or the Norwegian Government’.

               3.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 22 May 2012 as notified on 23 May 2012.

               4.

               Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the action directed towards ESA’s letter dated 2 July 2012 as notified on 2 July 2012 (Event No 639495) to the extent that it concerns ESA’s procedures for administering case files or ESA’s procedures for handling public access requests.

               5.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter dated 2 July 2012 as notified on 2 July 2012 (Event No 639495) to the extent that it concerns access to ESA College decisions containing the current empowerment of its directors.

               6.

               Orders the applicants to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-748/14: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2015 — Montenegro v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/77

         Order of the General Court of 14 October 2015 — Montenegro v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)
   (Case T-748/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/91)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-808/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014  — Spain v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/45

         Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-808/14)
   (2015/C 034/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the Decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27408 (C 24/2010) NN 37/2010 EX, EX CP 19/2009) granted by the authorities of Castilla La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less developed areas of Castilla La Mancha.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

               1.

               By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU as a result of the lack of an economic advantage for undertakings engaged in an economic activity, lack of selectivity of the measure and lack of distortion of competition.

               2.

               By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 106(2) and 107(3)(c) TFEU as a result of the lack of evidence to show that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed.

               3.

               By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges breach of the State aid procedure as a result of the irregularities which occurred during the preparatory investigation.

               4.

               By its fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty, equality, proportionality and subsidiarity in conjunction with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.