title: Case T-125/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Centro Studi Manieri v Council (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure for full crèche management — Decision to have recourse to the services of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics (OIB) and to abandon a tendering procedure)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Centro Studi Manieri v Council
   (Case T-125/06) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure for full crèche management - Decision to have recourse to the services of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics (OIB) and to abandon a tendering procedure)
   (2009/C 69/80)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Centro Studi Antonio Manieri Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Forte, M. Forte and G. Forte, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, P. Mahnič and M. Balta, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Council, made public by letter of its General Secretariat of 16 January 2006, abandoning the tendering procedure 2003/S 209-187862 for the full management of a crèche; second, for annulment of the decision to accept the proposal of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics (OIB) for the management of those services; and, third, for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Centro Studi Antonio Manieri Srl to pay its own costs as well as the costs incurred by the Council.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-361/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Plant protection products — Authorisation to place on the market — Ethofumesate — Directives 91/414/EEC and 2002/37/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 — Application for reopening of the oral procedure)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
   (Case C-361/06) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Authorisation to place on the market - Ethofumesate - Directives 91/414/EEC and 2002/37/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 - Application for reopening of the oral procedure)
   (2008/C 171/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG

      Defendant: College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

      Intervener: Agrichem BV
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active substance (OJ 2002 L 117, p. 10) — Obligation on Member States to withdraw, before 1 September 2003, authorisation for any product containing ethofumesate in the case where the authorisation holder does not have, or does not have access to, a dossier satisfying the conditions set out in Annex II to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(1) of Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active substance must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to terminate, before 1 September 2003, the authorisation of a plant protection product containing ethofumesate on the ground that the holder of that authorisation does not hold, or have access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-169/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora (Koragel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Koragel — Earlier Community word mark CHORAGON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora (Koragel)
   (Case T-169/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Koragel - Earlier Community word mark CHORAGON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 213/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kora Corp. Ltd (Swords, Ireland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2014 (Case No R 721/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring BV and Kora Corp. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ferring BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


20150731007616592015/C 270/11982014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150611101121Case C-98/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and Others v Magyar Állam (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades — National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines outside casinos — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Directive 98/34/EC — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations to the Commission — Member State liability for damage caused by legislation contrary to EU law)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1010120150611EN0011101112Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and Others v Magyar Állam
   (Case C-98/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades — National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines outside casinos — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Directive 98/34/EC — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations to the Commission — Member State liability for damage caused by legislation contrary to EU law)’2015/C 270/11Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft, Lixus Szerencsejáték Szervező kft, Lixus Projekt Szerencsejáték Szervező kft, Lixus Invest Szerencsejáték Szervező kft, Megapolis Terminal Szolgáltató kft

      Defendant: Magyar Állam

      Operative part of the judgment

            1)

            National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for a transitional period, introduces a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduces a proportional tax on that activity, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU provided that it is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to provide the services of operating slot machines in amusement arcades, this being a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

            2)

            National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for either a transitional period or compensation for operators of amusement arcades, prohibits the operation of slot machines outside casinos constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU.

            3)

            Restrictions on the freedom to provide services which may result from national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings can only be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest if the national court finds, after an overall assessment of the circumstances surrounding the adoption and implementation of that legislation:

                     —

                     that it actually pursues, primarily, objectives relating to the protection of consumers against gambling addiction and the prevention of criminal and fraudulent activities linked to gambling; the mere fact that a restriction on gambling activities incidentally benefits, through an increase in tax revenue, the budget of the Member State concerned, does not prevent that restriction from being considered actually to be pursuing, primarily, those objectives;

                     —

                     that it pursues those goals consistently and systematically, and

                     —

                     that it meets the requirements arising from general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to property.

            4)

            Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                     —

                     the provisions of national legislation that introduce a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduce a proportional tax on that activity, do not constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, and that

                     —

                     the provisions of national legislation that prohibit the operation of slot machines outside casinos constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be communicated in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of that directive.

            5)

            Article 56 TFEU is intended to confer rights on individuals, in such a way that its infringement by a Member State, including as a result of its legislative activity, gives rise to a right of individuals to obtain from that Member State compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that infringement, provided that that infringement is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that infringement and the damage sustained, this being a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

            6)

            Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 2006/96, are not intended to confer rights on individuals, in such a way that their infringement by a Member State gives rise to a right of individuals to obtain from that Member State compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that infringement on the basis of EU law.

            7)

            The fact that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings concerns an area falling within the competence of the Member States does not affect the answers to the questions raised by the referring court.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-127/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission (Referral back after setting aside of order — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person named in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations — Naming of that person in the list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Exceeded — Excusable error — Fundamental rights — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to respect for property — Right to respect for private and family life)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission
   (Case T-127/09 RENV) (1)

   ((Referral back after setting aside of order - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person named in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations - Naming of that person in the list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Exceeded - Excusable error - Fundamental rights - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to respect for property - Right to respect for private and family life))
   (2015/C 065/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Moser QC, E. Grieves, Barrister, H. Miller and R. Graham, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents); and European Commission (represented by E. Paasivirta and G. Valero Jordana, Agents)

      Re:

   Application initially for (i) partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Regulation No 881/2002 (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60), or of Regulation No 1330/2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant, and (ii) compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those acts.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, in so far as it concerns Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay both the costs incurred by Mr Abdulrahim in respect of the action for annulment and the sums advanced by the General Court by way of legal aid.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-358/05: Action brought on  23 September 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/16

         Action brought on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-358/05)
   (2005/C 296/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and S. Pardo Qunitillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               declare that, by not having adopted all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC or, in any event, by having failed to give notice of such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive should have been transposed into national law expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2002, p. 37.


title: Case C-552/08P P: Order of the Court of 1 October 2009 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Customs Code — Article 220(2)(b) — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Waiver of subsequent entry in the accounts of import duties — Notice to importers — Good faith)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/11

         Order of the Court of 1 October 2009 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-552/08P P) (1)

   (Appeal - Customs Code - Article 220(2)(b) - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Waiver of subsequent entry in the accounts of import duties - Notice to importers - Good faith)
   2010/C 11/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH (represented by: O. Wenzlaff, Rechtsanwält)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Schønberg, agent and B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwält)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-51/07 Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 5789 final of 4 December 2006 finding that post-clearance recovery of a part of the import duty not demanded from the applicant in respect of the import of sugar from Croatia should be effected — Good faith of the person liable to duty precluded if the Commission has published a notice to importers — Incorrect assessment of the effect which the subsequent confirmation of the authenticity and accuracy of the certificates of origin by the customs authorities of the State of export has on the criterion of good faith

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-625/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC (Appeal — Community plant variety rights — Application for a Community plant variety right — Apple variety ‘Gala Schnitzer’ — Technical examination — Test guidelines issued by the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 — Article 23(1) — Powers of the President of the CPVO — Addition of a distinctive characteristic on completion of the technical examination — Stability of the characteristic during two growing cycles)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC
   (Case C-625/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Application for a Community plant variety right - Apple variety ‘Gala Schnitzer’ - Technical examination - Test guidelines issued by the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) - Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 - Article 23(1) - Powers of the President of the CPVO - Addition of a distinctive characteristic on completion of the technical examination - Stability of the characteristic during two growing cycles))
   (2017/C 249/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents), Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC (represented by: M. Eller, avvocato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 September 2015, Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand and Elaris (Gala Schnitzer) (T-91/14 and T-92/14, not published, EU:T:2015:624);

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 20 September 2013 relating to the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety (Cases A 003/2007 and A 004/2007);

               3.

               Orders the Community Plant Variety Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schniga GmbH;

               4.

               Orders Brookfield New Zealand Ltd and Elaris SNC to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-398/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 — Inuit Tapiriit and Others v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 737/2010 — Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on the import and marketing of those products — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17 — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — Article 19)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 — Inuit Tapiriit and Others v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-398/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 737/2010 - Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Restrictions on the import and marketing of those products - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17 - United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Article 19))
   (2015/C 354/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Jaypootie Moesesie, Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak, David Kuptana, Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi, Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd (represented by: H. Viaene, J. Bouckaert and D. Gillet, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and C. Hermes, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Mrs Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi and Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3)

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-769/14: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Public service contracts — Development and maintenance of production information systems — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Annulment of the contested decisions — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/29

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament
   (Case T-769/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Development and maintenance of production information systems - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Annulment of the contested decisions - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 320/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: CGI Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg); and Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: B. Simon and L. Darie, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions to rank the applicants’ tender second in the cascade for the purposes of awarding the contract in respect of Lot 3, ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’, in the open call for tenders PE/ITEC/ITS14, ‘External Provision of IT Services’, and to award the first cascading contract in that tendering procedure to another consortium and, secondly, the award of damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2)

               The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred in connection with the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case T-455/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Europol against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 May 2011 in Case F-83/09 Kalmár v Europol

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/19

         Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Europol against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 May 2011 in Case F-83/09 Kalmár v Europol
   (Case T-455/11 P)
   2011/C 290/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Europol (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and E. Antypas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Andreas Kalmár (The Hague, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal and give a ruling on the substance of this case, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal

                           (a)

                           annulled Europol’s decision of 4 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol terminated Mr Kalmár’s fixed-term contract, the decision of 24 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol relieved him of the duty to serve his period of notice, and the decision of 18 July 2009 rejecting his complaint;

                           (b)

                           ordered Europol to pay damages of EUR 5 000 to Mr Kalmár; and

                           (c)

                           ordered Europol to pay all the costs;

               —

               order the respondent to pay all the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the costs incurred by him on appeal;

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita and of the rights of the defence. In the appellant’s submission, the Civil Service Tribunal carried out an examination on the basis of complaints other than those put forward by the respondent.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested decisions. The Civil Service Tribunal erred in its application inter alia of the duty of care and of the obligation to state reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal as regards the subject of the application for annulment. In the appellant’s submission, the Civil Service Tribunal ought to have classified the decision of 18 July 2009 as a decision having an adverse effect which is also subject to judicial review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging numerous errors in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal according to which Europol ‘did not’ or ‘did not carefully’ take account of certain ‘relevant and non-negligible facts’ when taking the dismissal decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was insufficiently reasoned.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging incorrect award of damages.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-302/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 1999/22/EC — Keeping of wild animals in zoos — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 10 June 2004
   in Case C-302/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 1999/22/EC - Keeping of wild animals in zoos - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)
   (2004/C 201/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-302/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. de Bellis) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (OJ 1999 L 94, p. 24), or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-72/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 1 February 2005 in Household of Jörg and Stefanie Wollny v Finanzgericht Landshut

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 1 February 2005 in Household of Jörg and Stefanie Wollny v Finanzgericht Landshut
   (Case C-72/05)
   (2005/C 93/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht München (Germany) of 1 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Household of Jörg and Stefanie Wollny and Finanzgericht Landshut on the following question:

               How is the term ‘full cost’ in Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) to be interpreted? Does the full cost for the privately used dwelling in a building forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of a business comprise, in addition to recurring expenses, annual depreciation for the wear and tear of buildings in accordance with the applicable national rules and/or the annual proportion of the acquisition and production cost - calculated on the basis of the applicable national period for adjustment of deductions – that has given rise to a right to deduct value added tax?

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.


title: Case C-196/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for failure to act — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union — Staff Regulations — Adjustment of correction coefficients — Council decision — Refusal to adopt the Commission’s proposal — Failure to act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-196/12) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Adjustment of correction coefficients - Council decision - Refusal to adopt the Commission’s proposal - Failure to act - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 39/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action for failure to act — Council’s unlawful failure to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation under Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations adjusting, as from 1st July 2011, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applying thereto — Refusal to adjust correction coefficients relating to places of employment — Infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-474/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity — Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-474/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity - Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector)
   2009/C 312/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, acting as Agent, and J. Scalais and O. Vanhulst, avocats)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that

                           —

                           by failing to provide that cases of refusal of access to the electricity distribution or transmission systems may be submitted to the regulatory authority which must then issue a binding decision within a period of two months, in accordance with the provisions of Article 23(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, and

                           —

                           by attributing to an authority other than the regulatory authority the power to define criteria which are decisive for the calculation of tariffs as regards certain electricity transmission installations, contrary to the provisions of Article 23(2)(a) of Directive 2003/54,
                           the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 07.02.2009.


title: Case T-412/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Vitro — Earlier Community word mark VITRAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)
   (Case T-412/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Vitro - Earlier Community word mark VITRAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV (Garza García, Nuevo Léon, Mexico) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 October 2006 (Case R 1364/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-470/00 P: European Parliament v Carlo Ripa di Meana (Appeal — Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retirement pension scheme — Time-limit for submission of applications to join that scheme — Knowledge acquired — Cross-appeal — Liability for costs — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-470/00 P: European Parliament v Carlo Ripa di Meana (1)

   (Appeal - Members of the European Parliament - Provisional retirement pension scheme - Time-limit for submission of applications to join that scheme - Knowledge acquired - Cross-appeal - Liability for costs - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 118/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-470/00 P: European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci and subsequently with the assistance of F. Capelli, avvocato) with an address for service in Luxembourg, APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2000 in Joined Cases T-83/99 to T-85/99 Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the proceedings being: Carlo Ripa di Meana, former Member of the European Parliament, residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando, former Member of the European Parliament, residing in Palermo (Italy), and Gastone Parigi, former Member of the European Parliament, residing in Pordenone (Italy), represented by W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants at first instance – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and A. La Pergola Judges; J. Mischo Advocate General; L. Hewlett, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 October 2000 in Joined Cases T-83/99to T-85/99Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament in so far as it upholds, in CasesT-83/99 and T-84/99, the actions brought by Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions brought by Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando for annulment of the decisions contained in letters Nos 300762 and 300763 from the College of Quaestors of 4 February 1999, respectively rejecting their requests for the provisional pension scheme referred to in Annex III to the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament to apply with retroactive effect;

               3.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal brought by Mr Parigi as inadmissible;

               4.

               Orders Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando to pay not only their own costs but also those incurred by the European Parliament both at first instance and in the present appeal;

               5.

               Orders Mr Parigi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in respect of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001


title: Case F-93/14: Action brought on 12 September 2014 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/48

         Action brought on 12 September 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-93/14)
   (2015/C 007/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: OHIM

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The Annulment of the decision of OHIM, drafted on the grounds of the decision of the president of the Office of 29th March 2012 concerning teleworking, not to authorise the applicant to telework in Barcelona, and thus, obliging her to return to Alicante.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs of the current proceedings.


title: Case C-455/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay SA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Leniency Notice — Obligation to state reasons — Reduction of the fine)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay SA v European Commission
   (Case C-455/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Reduction of the fine)
   2014/C 45/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, Agents, and by M. Gray, BL)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-186/06 Solvay v European Commission by which the General Court upheld in part an action for (i) partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 54), concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting in exchanges of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices and on the reduction of production capacities in the EEA, and in the monitoring of the implementation of those agreements in the European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate, and (ii) annulment or a reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders Solvay SA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-11/05: Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wieland Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. and Austria Buntmetall AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/29

         Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wieland Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. and Austria Buntmetall AG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-11/05)
   (2005/C 93/59)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 January 2005 by Wieland Werke AG, Ulm (Germany), Buntmetall Anstetten Ges.m.b.H., Amstetten (Austria), and Austria Buntmetall AG, Enzesfeld (Austria), represented by R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 3 September 2004, amended on 20 October 2004 (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes);

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed in the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission imposed a fine on the applicants on the ground that they had infringed Article 81(1) EC by participating in a series of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price-fixing and market-sharing in the copper plumbing tubes sector.
   The applicants object to that decision and argue that the renewed imposition of fines in the present case offends against the basic principle ne bis in idem, as the applicants had already been found by the Commission to have committed a largely similar infringement in the case of industrial tubes (COMP/E-1/38.240). The applicants submit that, in determining the amount of the fines, the Commission should have at least taken the fines which had already been imposed into account and that it is impermissible to divide up the single set of copper tubes proceedings into separate industrial tubes proceedings and plumbing tubes proceedings.
   Furthermore, the applicants argue that the fine is excessive and that mandatory procedural principles, such as the duty under Article 253 EC to state the reasons on which a decision is based and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment were disregarded when the amount of the fine was being determined. The applicants base their arguments inter alia on the following provisions:

               —

               in assessing the gravity of the infringement, the Commission based its conclusions on an inaccurate and insufficient assessment of the type of infringement, its effects on the market and the geographical scope of the agreements,

               —

               in differentiating between the undertakings concerned, the Commission should not only have taken their market share into consideration, but also the size of the undertakings in absolute terms,

               —

               in its decision, the Commission did not give any indication as to which principles it applied in determining the specific basic amount of the fines and did not make it unambiguously clear in its notice of objections that it was working on the premise that the rules on competition had been infringed in a particularly serious manner,

               —

               in increasing the fine on account of the duration of the agreements, the Commission incorrectly applied its guidelines on the method of setting fines (1) and additionally, misjudged the fact that the limitation period of the right of recourse for important issues raised in the case had already expired,

               —

               the Commission failed to take account of fundamental attenuating circumstances, such as the difficult state of the market, the low percentage return on sales in the copper piping market sector or the fact that the agreements were terminated immediately after the searches.

         In addition, the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in that, inter alia, it unlawfully discriminated between undertakings involved in the cartel by applying a greater fine reduction to certain undertakings on account of cooperation outside the Leniency Notice.
   Finally, the applicants claim that in terms of determining the starting amount of the fine Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) infringes the principle of legal certainty and consequently, overriding Community law in that it grants the Commission a virtually unfettered discretion.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition under Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-446/16 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2017 — Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH, DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Traditional specialities guaranteed — Late lodging of opposition measure by the competent national authorities — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2017 — Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH, DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH v European Commission
   (Case C-446/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Traditional specialities guaranteed - Late lodging of opposition measure by the competent national authorities - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 129/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH, DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A Wagner, Rechtanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

      The operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case C-128/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — International transport undertakings established in another Member State — Annual turnover in Austria of EUR 22000 or less — Simplified procedures for charging and collecting the VAT)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-128/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - International transport undertakings established in another Member State - Annual turnover in Austria of EUR 22000 or less - Simplified procedures for charging and collecting the VAT)
   (2006/C 294/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: H. Dossi and M. Fruhmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6, 9(2)(b), 17, 18 and 22(3) to (5) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Specific rules for companies involved in international passenger transport established in another State and whose annual turnover in Austria does not exceed EUR 22 000 — No duty to submit periodic declarations and to pay the net amount of VAT
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by allowing taxable persons not established in Austria who transport passengers there not to submit tax return forms and not to pay the net amount of VAT when their annual turnover in Austria is below EUR 22 000, in that case deeming the amount of VAT due to be equal to the amount of deductible VAT and making application of the simplified rules contingent on Austrian VAT not appearing on invoices or in other documents serving as invoices, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18(1)(a) and (2) and 22(3) to (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common arrangement of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.


title: Case C-332/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 June 2017 — AS Starman v Tarbijakaitseamet

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 June 2017 — AS Starman v Tarbijakaitseamet
   (Case C-332/17)
   (2017/C 256/15)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AS Starman

      Defendant: Tarbijakaitseamet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 to be interpreted as meaning that a trader can make available a telephone number for which a higher rate than the normal rate applies if the trader, in addition to the telephone number at a higher rate, also offers consumers, in a comprehensible and easily accessible way, a landline number at the normal rate for the purposes of contacting him in relation to a contract concluded?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU preclude a situation in which a consumer who voluntarily uses a telephone number with a higher rate for contacting a trader in relation to a concluded contract, despite the provision by the trader of a telephone number at the normal rate in a comprehensible and easily accessible manner, is obliged to pay the higher rate for contacting the trader?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the limitation in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83 oblige the trader, together with the speed dial number, everywhere also to present a landline number at the normal rate and information on the differences in price?

      (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


title: Joined Cases T-178/03 and 179/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 — CeWe Color v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word signs DigiFilm and DigiFilmMaker — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/9

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 — CeWe Color v OHIM
   (Joined Cases T-178/03 and 179/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word signs DigiFilm and DigiFilmMaker - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 257/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by C. Spintig, S. Richter, U. Sander and H. Förster, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by I Mayer and M.G. Schneider, Agents)
   Application for:
   annulment of the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2003 (Cases R 638/2002-3 and R 641/2002-3), in relation to registration of the word signs DigiFilmMaker and DigiFilm as Community trade marks
   Operative part of the judgment:
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003


title: Case C-168/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Brussels (Belgium) lodged on 29 March 2007 — AXA, Belgium SA, formerly AXA Royale Belge SA v (1) État Belge, administration de la TVA, de l'enregistrement et des domaines, (2) État Belge, administration de l'inspection spéciale des impôts

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Brussels (Belgium) lodged on 29 March 2007 — AXA, Belgium SA, formerly AXA Royale Belge SA v (1) État Belge, administration de la TVA, de l'enregistrement et des domaines, (2) État Belge, administration de l'inspection spéciale des impôts
   (Case C-168/07)
   (2007/C 129/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AXA, Belgium SA, formerly AXA Royale Belge SA

      Defendants: (1) État Belge, administration de la TVA, de l'enregistrement et des domaines, (Belgian State, VAT, Land Registration and Estates Authority), (2) État Belge, administration de l'inspection spéciale des impôts (Belgian State, Special Tax Inspection Authority)
   Question referred
   Are the provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax (1), in particular Article 13(A)(1)(f) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may grant an exemption from the tax only where independent groups of persons supply services exclusively for the benefit of their members, to the exclusion of non-members?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-655/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-655/16)
   (2017/C 121/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Question referred

   Is the proper application of the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.


title: Case T-142/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-142/08) (1)

   (Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)
   2013/C 313/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by: N. Díaz Abad and J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the field of fraud prevention (OJ 2008 C16A, pp. 1 and 16 respectively) on the ground that they were published in French, English and German only.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the same field, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-153/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov (Slovakia), lodged on 26 March 2013 — Pohotovost’, s.r.o. v Ján Soroka

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov (Slovakia), lodged on 26 March 2013 — Pohotovost’, s.r.o. v Ján Soroka
   (Case C-153/13)
   2013/C 178/04
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Bardejov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pohotovost’, s.r.o.

      Defendant: Ján Soroka

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’), in conjunction with Article 47 and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the present case, which does not allow a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights to intervene in court enforcement proceedings, to defend a consumer against whom enforcement proceedings are being brought for the recovery of a claim under a consumer contract, where that consumer is not represented by a lawyer?

               2.

               Is the European Union law set out in question 1 to be interpreted as meaning that the basic right to legal protection of the consumer and of an intervening party under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is infringed when the intervention of a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights is not allowed in court enforcement proceedings and the consumer is not represented by a lawyer?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-244/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Unister v OHIM (fluege.de) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark fluege.de — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Unister v OHIM (fluege.de)
   (Case T-244/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark fluege.de - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 178/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig (Germany)) (represented by: H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 (Case R 2149/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign fluege.de as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Unister GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-30/99)

text:
C 86/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
to adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives            by the Commission of the European Communities,
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               represented by Mr Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
expiry of the period prescribed for so doing. That period,         Adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 95/30/EC,          seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
expired on 30 November 1996 without the Grand Duchy                exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary              service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la
provisions.                                                        Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 155, 6.7.1995, p. 41.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that:
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of
     Spain against the Council of the European Union                   1. by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland, with the
                                                                           description and indication of fineness which they
                        (Case C-27/99)                                     bear in their country of origin, of articles made
                        (1999/C 86/23)                                     from precious metals (gold, silver or platinum)
                                                                           lawfully manufactured and marketed in other
                                                                           Member States but not complying with the Irish
                                                                           provisions concerning standards of fineness, or by
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        with those for the appropriate lower official Irish
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of                           standard of fineness;
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                               2. by requiring articles made from precious metals
                                                                           (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to bear a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                sponsor's mark indicative of the maker, worker or
                                                                           dealer in such articles, registered by the Company
                                                                           which appoints the Assay Master by which these
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to                       articles are intended to be struck with the
    Council Regulation (EC) No 48/99 (1) of 18 December                    approved hallmark, when these articles already
    1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish                bear a sponsor's mark conforming to the
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and                       legislation of the Member State of origin;
    certain conditions under which they may be fished;
                                                                       3. by requiring articles made from precious metals
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                        (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, which
                                                                           have been lawfully struck in another Member State
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                       with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                guarantees of independence, and which offers
                                                                           appropriate information to consumers, to bear an
                                                                           approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master
(1) OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 1.                                              which is appointed by the Wardens and
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.                                            Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin;
                                                                       4. by establishing differences between approved
                                                                           hallmarks struck on articles manufactured in
                                                                           Ireland and those hallmarks of the same type
                                                                           struck on articles imported from other Member
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of                     States,
         the European Communities against Ireland
                        (Case C-30/99)
                                                                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation under
                        (1999/C 86/24)                                 Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                       Community;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 1999             Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/13
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Commission Directive 96/28/EC of 10 May 1996
                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
The Commission submits that, as far as it is aware,                      76/116/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
Ireland continues in its infringement of Article 30 of the               Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the French
EC Treaty by:                                                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under EC
                                                                         Treaty; and
Ð failing to adopt regulations amending the present
    standards of fineness regulations so as to recognise            2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    those standards of fineness included in the proposed
    directive on the approximation of laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions of the Member States
    relating to articles of precious metal;                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
                                                                    those put forward in Case C-26/1999 (2); the period laid
                                                                    down in the directive expired on 31 May 1997.
Ð failing to adopt a proposed amendment to Section 9 of
    the Hallmarking Act 1981 so as to accept articles
                                                                    (1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, p. 30.
    struck with the sponsor's mark of another Member
                                                                    (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
    State where the legislation of that Member State
    authorises the marketing of the article and upon proof
    supplied by the Member State that the sponsor's mark
    is, in fact, registered in that Member State;
Ð failing to amend Section 2 of the Hallmarking Act
    1981 so as to permit the recognition of hallmarks               Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
    struck in other Member States;                                  the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Ð maintaining differences between approved hallmarks                                         (Case C-32/99)
    struck or articles manufactured in Ireland and those                                     (1999/C 86/26)
    hallmarks of the same type struck on imported
    articles.
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities, represented by Richard B.
                                                                    Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of              Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil servant on secondment to
  the European Communities against the French Republic              its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de
                         (Case C-31/99)
                                                                    la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 86/25)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the French Republic was brought before            that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a            1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                     Commission Directive 96/28/EC of 10 May 1996
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                         76/116/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                         Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Grand
                                                                         Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         obligations under EC Treaty; and
that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               costs.


title: Case T-437/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/44

         Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission
   (Case T-437/15 R)
   ((Interim measures - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/53)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others (Copertino, Italy) and the other 37 applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: G. Manelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-361/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Centraal bureau voor de statistiek v Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/54

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Centraal bureau voor de statistiek v Commission
   (Case T-361/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/97
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-91/10: Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Lucchini v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/61

         Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Lucchini v Commission
   (Case T-91/10)
   2010/C 113/93
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Lucchini SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Delfino, J.-P. Gunther and E. Bigi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final in Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption, as amended by Decision C(2009) 9912 final.

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision of 30 September 2009, in so far as the applicant is ordered to pay the sum of EUR 14.35 million jointly and severally with the company S.P. SpA.

               —

               In the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed.

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision of 30 September 2009, as amended by the decision of 8 December 2009, by which the Commission imposed fines for infringement of Article 65 ECSC, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on other actions brought against the decision in question.
   In particular, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of its action:

               —

               The incomplete nature of the decision and breach of essential procedural requirements, in so far as the decision was notified without its annexes and was adopted by the Commission in an incomplete form and was then re-notified still in an incomplete form, without the main text.

               —

               The Commission lacks competence to allege infringement under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty once the treaty has expired and, accordingly, incorrectly chose the substantive legal basis.

               —

               Breach of the rights of the defence and infringement and incorrect application of the law, in so far as the Commission failed to re-open the administrative procedure and purported to exercise the power to examine the more favourable legislation applicable in the present case without giving the applicant the opportunity effectively to make known its views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged.

         In the alternative, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence and that the substantive law was incorrectly applied, in so far as the Commission imputes the infringement, for the entire period from 6 December 1989 and 27 June 2000, to Lucchini through the single undertaking Lucchini/Siderpotenza. The applicant emphasises Siderpotenza’s decision-making and management autonomy and the fact that the Commission was not in a position to provide convincing evidence to show that Lucchini was responsible, in terms of human and physical resources, for the management of Siderpotenza.
   In the further alternative, the applicant observes that the Commission incorrectly applied the rules governing the calculation of fines, in particular the 1998 Guidelines.

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


title: Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/27

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
   (Case T-70/12)
   2012/C 109/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is not chairman of Bank Mellat, as wrongly alleged by the defendant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for Bank Mellat’s designation are not met and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of his human and fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-497/10 Divandari Bank v Council is successful, or Bank Mellat succeeds in its application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council, this application must also succeed.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)


title: Case T-360/14: Order of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/55

         Order of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)
   (Case T-360/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 027/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2014 (Case R 1302/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH and Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB and Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-49/09: Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/11

         Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-49/09)
   2009/C 102/15
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by applying a reduced VAT rate of 7 % to supplies, the import and the intra-Community acquisition of clothing and clothing accessories for babies and of children’s footwear on the basis of Article 41(2) of the Law on Goods and Services Tax (ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004, in conjunction with items 45 and 47 of Annex III to that Law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the applicant’s view, the Republic of Poland’s application of a reduced VAT rate of 7% to supplies, the import and the intra-Community acquisition of clothing and clothing accessories for babies and of children’s footwear on the basis of Article 41(2) of the Law on Goods and Services Tax of 11 March 2004, in conjunction with items 45 and 47 of Annex III to that Law, is contrary to the explicit provisions of Article 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC. Application of that reduced rate to the abovementioned goods is not covered by any derogation accorded to the Republic of Poland in point 1(a) and (b) of Chapter 9 (‘Taxation’) of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union or in Article 128 of Directive 2006/112/EC.

      (1)  OJ No L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1.