title: Action brought on 28 May 1998 by Marie Costigan against the Council of the European Union (Case T-84/98)

text:
C 278/38            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
   The training programmes were carried out, as will                   expenditure for non-teaching expert, administrative
   be shown below, in strict compliance with and                       and secretarial staff for the project' but as specialist
   observance of the conditions imposed by the original                work which, by its very nature is carried out by third
   approval decision.                                                  parties.
Ð Contravention of the law Ð Unlawfulness Ð Error of                   The Decision is based on different criteria and on
   assessment of the facts:                                            whether E. B., L.da, a sub-contractor, is entitled to
                                                                       make legitimate profits.
   The applicant complied completely and rigorously
                                                                       The DAFSE and the Commission always accepted, by
   with all the requirements imposed by the Commission
                                                                       means of the discretion applied in respect of the
   as laid down in the decision approving the application
                                                                       period from 1986 to 1989, profit calculated on the
   and the legislation and, in particular, with that of
                                                                       basis of 50 % of the costs borne by the subcontractors,
   imparting vocational training to 36 and 300 persons
                                                                       so that the profit made by E. B., L.da was within the
   (in the two files, respectively) whose skills were
                                                                       bounds accepted by the DAFSE and the Commission.
   inadequate to permit their entry into the labour
   market.
   The contested decision alleges that certain expenditure
   incurred by the applicant did not fulfil the conditions
   laid down in the approval decision.                             Action brought on 28 May 1998 by Marie Costigan
                                                                            against the Council of the European Union
   For that reason it proposes to suspend final payment                                   (Case T-84/98)
   on the grounds set out in the report drawn up by the                                    (98/C 278/84)
   InspeccËaÄo-Geral de FinancËas (Inspectorate General for
   Finances).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
   Thus, the contested decision was based exclusively, by
   reference, to that report of the InspeccËaÄo-Geral de           An action against the Council of the European Union was
   FinancËas.                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 28 May 1998 by Marie Costigan,
                                                                   represented by SeÂamas O'Tuathail, instructed by Lehane
   There is therefore an error of assessment of the facts          & Hogan, Solicitors, of 1 Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin 7,
   in the contested decision since the Commission, by              Ireland.
   basing itself exclusively on that report, committed the
   same errors as to the facts as the report itself.               The applicant claims that the Court should:
   The applicant used the payment to trainees of                   Ð annul Decision No 677/97 of the Secretary-General of
   attendance and merit bonuses in order to keep them                  the Council of the European Union of 11 July 1997,
   interested and to maximise learning, a policy which
   gave optimum results and resulted in zero absenteeism,
   none of which is contrary to the original approval              Ð reinstate Marie Costigan to her former post or
   decision.                                                           position with the Council of the European Union
                                                                       without any loss or diminution in her status, salary or
                                                                       incidental benefits,
   The applicant contracted a specialist organisation to
   provide assistance and to provide greater quality to
                                                                   Ð annul all subsequent decisions following on or giving
   the courses taught.
                                                                       effect in any way to or emanating from Decision
                                                                       No 677/97, mentioned above, made by or on behalf of
                                                                       the Secretary-General of the Council of the European
   The applicant subcontracted the services of that
                                                                       Union, his servants or agents,
   organisation, engaging teaching staff and concluding
   contracts for expert educational assessments and
   vocational guidance and budget management services.             Ð annul the decision made on 14 June 1996 by the
                                                                       Secretary-General of the Council of the European
                                                                       Union to refer the case of the applicant to the
   Reference to such subcontracting, which is permitted                Invalidity Committee,
   by the legislation and by the Commission's approval
   decision, was already to be found in the application,
   at least implicity, inasmuch as the estimated costs             Ð declare the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee
   associated with such work did not appear as                         arrived at on 9 July 1997 to be null and void,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 278/39
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant all arrears of                 the applicant suffered from total permanent invalidity
    salary owned to her and accruing from 1 August 1997                 or incapacity, the appointing authority could not make
    as well as all incidental benefits pertaining thereto,              a determination under Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff
    together with interest at a rate of 10 % per annum on               Regulations.
    such arrears according as they fell due or would have
    been paid had it not been for Decision No 677/97,
                                                                    Ð The facts in the present case indicate that the
    referred to above,
                                                                        Invalidity Committee convened by the Council
                                                                        was established not for the purpose of investigating
                                                                        whether the applicant was suffering from a total and
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant the sum of BEF                 permanent incapacity to carry out her duties, but as a
    3 000 000 (three million Belgian francs) for non-                   means of retiring her from the service of the Council.
    material damage,                                                    From this point of view, the whole invalidity
                                                                        procedure should be considered as vitiated by a misuse
                                                                        of powers.
Ð annul the findings of the Secretary-General of the
    Council made on 12 February 1998, rejecting the
    applicant's complaint of 15 October 1997 and
    confirming that Decision No 677/97 remains valid,
    and
                                                                    Action brought on 6 July 1998 by Gisela Stodtmeister
Ð award Marie Costigan the costs of the proceedings.                         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-101/98)
                                                                                (98/C 278/85)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant in the present case, an official of the
Council affected by a decision declaring her invalidity             An action against the Council of the European Union was
(Decision No 677/97), challenges the definitive decision of         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
invalidity, as well as the preliminary decision establishing        Communities on 6 July 1998 by Gisela Stodtmeister,
an Invalidity Committee in regard to her case and its               residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Georges
conclusions, on which basis the first decision was adopted.         Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson sarl, 30 rue de Cessange.
In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits that:
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð The Invalidity Committee wrongly finds that she
    suffers from an invalidity which is considered as total,        Ð annul the decisions concerning promotion to grade A 3
    preventing her from performing the duties                           adopted for 1997 by the appointing authority on
    corresponding to a post in her career bracket. This                 17 November 1997,
    statement does not provide any reasons that would
    enable the reader to assess the considerations upon
                                                                    Ð annul the decision not to promote the applicant to
    which it is based. Furthermore, since the conclusions
                                                                        grade A 3 adopted in the context of the 1997
    make no reference whatsoever to any medical findings,
                                                                        promotions procedure, with the legal consequence
    no link could be established between the medical
                                                                        flowing therefrom, namely reinstatement of the
    findings (if any) of the Invalidity Committee and
                                                                        applicant's career from 1 January until the date of her
    its conclusions. Decision No 677/97 is accordingly
                                                                        retirement or until the date of her promotion to grade
    vitiated by a procedural irregularity.
                                                                        A 3,
Ð The defendant did not have the power to adopt                     Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
    Decision No 677/97 on three grounds. First, an
    appointing authority can refer the case of an official to       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the Invalidity Committee only where that individual's
    sick-leave totals more than 12 months in a period of
    three years as per the fourth subparagraph of                   The applicant states that the procedure for drawing up
    Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, which has not           staff reports was not correctly followed as regards her
    been established in the present case. Second, the               staff report for the period 1993 to 1994. Consequently,
    Invalidity Committee never examined the applicant.              when the Advisory Committee on Promotion for
    The contested decision was thus adopted without                 Category A officials met, it did not have available to it
    any medical basis. Third, as the conclusions of the             any staff report relating to the applicant for that period. It
    Invalidity Committee themselves do not establish that           therefore omitted to take the applicant's merits and


title: Case C-488/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 23 September 2011 — D.F. Asbeek Brusse, K. De Man Garabito v Jahani BV

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 23 September 2011 — D.F. Asbeek Brusse, K. De Man Garabito v Jahani BV
   (Case C-488/11)
   2012/C 13/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina De Man Garabito

      Defendant: Jahani BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should a person who lets residential premises on a commercial basis and who lets a residential property to an individual be deemed to be a seller or supplier within the meaning of the Directive? (1) Does a tenancy agreement between a person who lets residential premises on a commercial basis and a person who rents such premises on a non-commercial basis fall within the scope of the Directive?

               2.

               Does the fact that Article 6 of the Directive must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy, mean that, in a dispute between individuals, the national transposition measures with regard to unfair contractual terms are a matter of public policy, so that the national court is competent and obliged, both in first-instance proceedings and in appeal proceedings, of its own motion (and thus also outside the ambit of the grounds of complaint), to assess a contractual term against the national transposition measures and to find that term to be void if it comes to the conclusion that the term is unfair?

               3.

               Is it compatible with the practical effect of Community law that the national court does not refrain from applying a penalty clause which must be deemed to be an unfair contractual term within the meaning of the Directive, but, by the application of national legislation, merely mitigates the penalty, in a case where an individual has invoked the mitigation powers of the court, but not the voidability of the term concerned?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case F-109/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/56

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament
   (Case F-109/15) (1)

   (2016/C 156/78)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5/10/2015, p. 36.


title: Case C-481/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2012 — Juvelta UAB v Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2012 — Juvelta UAB v Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai
   (Case C-481/12)
   2013/C 9/53
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant and appellant: Juvelta UAB

      Defendant and respondent: Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as prohibiting national legal rules under which, when seeking to sell on the market of a Member State of the European Union articles of gold imported from another Member State which are permitted to be put on the market of that Member State (of export), those articles must be stamped with a mark, of an independent assay office authorised by a Member State, which confirms that the article bearing it has been assayed by that office and in which information intelligible to consumers of the Member State of import concerning the article’s standard of fineness is specified, in circumstances where such information concerning the standard of fineness is provided in a separate and additional mark or marking stamped on the same article of gold?

               2.

               For the answer to the first question is it significant that, as in the instance under consideration, the additional marking concerning the standard of fineness of articles of gold that is provided on the articles and is intelligible to consumers of the Member State of import (for example, marking with the three Arabic numerals ‘585’) has not been effected by an independent assay office authorised by a Member State of the European Union, but the information provided in the marking corresponds in meaning to the information specified in the mark, stamped on the same article, of the independent assay office authorised by the Member State of export (for example, the State of export’s marking with the Arabic numeral ‘3’ specifically denotes, under the legal measures of that State, a standard of fineness of 585)?


title: Case C-270/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 14 July 2009 — Macdonald Resorts Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 14 July 2009 — Macdonald Resorts Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-270/09)
   2009/C 267/48
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Macdonald Resorts Limited

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where MRL, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Club and the contracts associated therewith, makes supplies of contractual rights (‘Points Rights’) which entitle the purchaser to Points redeemable annually for the occupation and use of timeshare accommodation in MRL's resorts, is that supply to be characterised:

                           (a)

                           as the leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (now Article 135(1)(I) of Directive 2006/112 (1)); or

                           (b)

                           as membership of a club; or

                           (c)

                           in some other manner?

               2.

               Does it affect the answer to question 1 that:

                           (a)

                           In some cases the contractual rights are acquired in return for the customer depositing with MRL pre-existing rights of occupation held by the customer in timeshare accommodation at a particular place for one or more fixed weeks?

                           (b)

                           the customer may in any year decide not to redeem his or her Points entitlement for that year in whole or in part for any rights of occupation and may instead elect to augment his or her entitlement in the following year, or, subject to the contractual conditions of the scheme in any year, may augment that year's entitlement by ‘borrowing’ from his or her entitlement to Points in the following year;

                           (c)

                           the properties comprising the pool of accommodation may change between the time when Points Rights are acquired and the time when Points are redeemed for the right to occupy a property;

                           (d)

                           the number of Points to which the customer is entitled each year may be varied by the supplier in accordance with the contractual conditions of the scheme;

                           (e)

                           The Appellant may from time to time arrange for persons holding Points Rights to have access to an external timeshare programme;

                           (f)

                           The Appellant may from time to time make arrangements for persons holding Points Rights to exchange their Points for accommodation in hotels operated by the Appellant or for other benefits provided by the Appellant?

               3.

               Where a taxable person makes supplies of the services described in questions 1 and 2 above,

                           (a)

                           are these ‘services connected with immovable property’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (now Article 45 of Directive 2006/112);

                           (b)

                           if the answer to question 3 a) is ‘Yes’: in circumstances where Members of the Club may exercise their contractual rights by occupying timeshare accommodation in more than one Member State, and it is not known at the time of supply which accommodation will be so occupied, how is the place of supply to be determined?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
   OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case T-9/94: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 2008 — Ypma v Council and Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 2008 — Ypma v Council and Commission
   (Case T-9/94) (1)

   (2008/C 197/60)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 26.2.1994.


title: Case T-768/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — RP Technik v OHIM — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/29

         Action brought on 28 December 2015 — RP Technik v OHIM — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)
   (Case T-768/15)
   (2016/C 078/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: P. Henrichs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnomarmi Snc (Treviso, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘RP ROYAL PALLADIUM’ — Community trade mark application No 11 358 496

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2014 in Case R 2061/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if the intervener is not a party to the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-328/14: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 17 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Anna Pančurová, Róbert Demeter, Kristína Pužová, Katarína Harakľová, Roman Novák, Marcela Grundzová, Milan Pulko, Peter Chomča, Jarmila Lešková, Katarína Malarová, Jana Belajová, Tatiana Kučkovská, Marián Demeter, Helena Chomčová, Marcela Troščáková, Nataša Virágová, Kvetuša Hudáková, Peter Grundza, Dávid Renner, Zdenko Ričalka, Jarmila Kurejová, Mária Maxinová

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/25

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 17 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Anna Pančurová, Róbert Demeter, Kristína Pužová, Katarína Harakľová, Roman Novák, Marcela Grundzová, Milan Pulko, Peter Chomča, Jarmila Lešková, Katarína Malarová, Jana Belajová, Tatiana Kučkovská, Marián Demeter, Helena Chomčová, Marcela Troščáková, Nataša Virágová, Kvetuša Hudáková, Peter Grundza, Dávid Renner, Zdenko Ričalka, Jarmila Kurejová, Mária Maxinová
   (Case C-328/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/35)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-503/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 228 EC — Measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court — Rescission of a contract)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-503/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 228 EC - Measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court - Rescission of a contract)
   (2007/C 211/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, and H.-J. Prieß, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Gracia, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by T. Pynnä, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the Court's judgment of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01 — Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Award of public service contracts by the City of Brunswick and the Municipality of Bockhorn without calls for tenders — Request that a periodic penalty payment be imposed
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed, at the date on which the period laid down in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 228 EC, to adopt all the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01 Commission v Germany regarding the conclusion of a contract for waste disposal by the City of Brunswick (Germany), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.


title: Case T-103/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Frucona Košice v Commission (State aid — Excise duties — Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Rights of the defence — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Private creditor test — Burden of proof)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-103/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Excise duties - Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Rights of the defence - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Private creditor test - Burden of proof))
   (2016/C 156/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s. (OJ 2014 L 176, p. 38).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s.;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Frucona Košice, including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case T-95/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Cindu Chemicals and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Cindu Chemicals and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-95/10) (1)

   (REACH - Identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2013/C 114/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Cindu Chemicals BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands), Deza, a.s. (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark) and Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, subsequently by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, barrister, and thereafter by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil, anthracene low (EC No 292-604-8) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in accordance with Article 59 of REACH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-209/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — The Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd (Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Concept of an agreement having as its object the restriction of competition — Agreement to reduce production capacity — Beef and veal)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — The Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd
   (Case C-209/07) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81(1) EC - Concept of an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’ - Agreement to reduce production capacity - Beef and veal)
   (2009/C 6/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Supreme Court
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: The Competition Authority

      Respondents: Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court, Ireland — Interpretation of Article 81(1) EC — Measures limiting or controlling production — Inclusion of an agreement whose effect is to reduce structural capacity selectively
   Operative part of the judgment
   An agreement with features such as those of the standard form of contract concluded between the 10 principal beef and veal processors in Ireland, who are members of Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, and requiring, among other things, a reduction of the order of 25 % in processing capacity, has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-137/02: Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Recommendation 96/280/EC — Meaning of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs))

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-137/02: Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Action for annulment - Recommendation 96/280/EC - Meaning of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs))
   (2004/C 314/38)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-137/02: Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG, established in Malchow (Germany), represented by S. Völcker and J. Heithecker, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, and M. Núñez-Müller) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/821/EC of 15 January 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 20) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.


title: Case T-535/14: Action brought on 18 July 2014 — The Cookware Company v OHIM — Fissler (VITA+VERDE)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/14

         Action brought on 18 July 2014 — The Cookware Company v OHIM — Fissler (VITA+VERDE)
   (Case T-535/14)
   2014/C 351/16
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Cookware Company Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2014 given in Case R 1082/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour containing the verbal elements ‘VITA+VERDE’ for gods in Class 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 73  054

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier CTM No 1 0 13  787 for the word ‘vitavit’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-538/11: Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Hermine Sax v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Hermine Sax v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
   (Case C-538/11) (1)

   2013/C 63/27
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-286/08: Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Fidelio KG v OHIM

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/17

         Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Fidelio KG v OHIM
   (Case T-286/08)
   (2008/C 247/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Fidelio KG (Linz, Austria) (represented by M. Gail, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2008 (case R 632/2007-4);

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs as well as those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Hallux’ for goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 (Application No 5 245 147).

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially upheld.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the registered marks concerning the goods ‘orthopaedic article’ and ‘footwear’ do not present any absolute grounds for refusal.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-129/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 March 2015 — H. M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 March 2015 — H. M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)
   (Case C-129/15)
   (2015/C 171/27)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: H. M.

      Respondent in cassation: Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a body/company is a body governed by public law merely because over 30 % of its revenue from its activity in the previous year is derived from medical activities which were paid for out of the Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa (national health insurance fund) and carried out in conditions of effective competition with other medical establishments?

               2)

               Is Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of medical services in conditions of effective competition by private companies established for profit-making purposes may be regarded as ‘meeting needs in the general interest’?

               3)

               Is Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as precluding Paragraph 1, point 21 of the Additional Provisions (Dopalnitelni razporedbi) of the Law on public procurement (Zakon za obshtestvenite porachki), according to which it is sufficient, for the purposes of determining that a body is a body governed by public law, if just one of the criteria corresponding to the cumulative criteria laid down by that directive is met?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case C-201/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-55/08: Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) v European Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/16

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-55/08: Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) v European Commission
   (Case C-201/11 P)
   2011/C 204/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, D. Piccinin, Barrister, B. Keane, Solicitor, T. McQuail, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               (a)

               The General Court erred in law in the application of the Directive 89/552 (1), both as regards the requirement of clarity and transparency and the characterisation of the EURO as an event of major importance for society.

               (b)

               The General Court erred in law in the application of the Treaty provisions concerning competition.

               (c)

               The General Court erred in law in the application of the Treaty provisions concerning the freedom to provide services and proportionality.

               (d)

               The General Court erred in law in the application of UEFA's right to property.

               (e)

               The General Court erred in law by finding that the contested decision contained an adequate statement of reasons in respect of (i) the characterization of the EURO as an event of major importance for society, (ii) competition, (iii) freedom to provide services, and (iv) property rights.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
   OJ L 298 p. 23


title: Case C-368/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) on 11 July 2011 — criminal proceedings against Raffaele Arrichiello

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) on 11 July 2011 — criminal proceedings against Raffaele Arrichiello
   (Case C-368/11)
   2011/C 282/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy).

      Party to the main proceedings

   Raffaele Arrichiello.

      Questions referred

   What is the interpretation to be given to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC concerning freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the sector of bets on sporting events, for the purposes of determining whether or not the above-mentioned provisions of the treaty authorise national legislation establishing a monopoly regime in favour of the State and a system of concessions and authorisations which, in the case of a certain number of concessions, makes provision for: a) the existence of a general tendency to protect the holders of concessions granted in an earlier period, on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some operators; b) the presence of provisions de facto guaranteeing the maintenance of commercial positions acquired on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some operators (such as, for example, a prohibition on new concessionaires installing their windows at less than a certain distance from those already existing); and c) the setting of hypotheses for the expiry of the concession and acquisition of guarantees of a very high amount, such hypotheses including that in which the concessionnaire directly or indirectly operates cross-border gaming activities similar to those forming the subject-matter of the concession?


title: Case C-46/11: Action brought on 1 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/16

         Action brought on 1 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-46/11)
   2011/C 103/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by carrying out an improper transposition of the conditions for establishing derogations within the terms of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission alleges that the Republic of Poland has failed correctly to transpose into Polish law the conditions governing derogations from the prohibitions connected with the protection of bird and animal species as set out in Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.
   First, in two regulations of the Minister for the Environment in relation to protected species of plants and animals occurring in the wild, paragraphs 7(1) and 8 respectively allow for a general derogation from the prohibitions serving the protection of species (as, for example, the prohibition of intentional killing, capture, and so forth) in connection with activities linked to the operation of rational agricultural or forestry holdings or of fisheries. Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, however, does not provide for any possibility of such a derogation.
   Second, in Article 52(2)(5) of the Law on the protection of nature, the possibility of providing for a derogation, for purposes of the ‘prevention of serious damage, in particular in agricultural or forestry holdings or in fisheries’, from the obligations connected to the protection of animal species is more extensive in scope than the derogation provided for in Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
   Third, the possibility, provided for under Article 56(4)(2) of the Law on the protection of nature, of a derogation from the prohibitions concerning species protection in the case where this ‘results from the need to restrict serious damage on a holding, in particular an agricultural farm, forestry holding or a fish farm’ is more extensive than that provided for in Article 16(1)(b) of the habitats directive.
   Fourth, the regulation of 28 September 2004 concerning protected species of animals living in the wild permits the killing, capture and so forth of otters (Lutra Lutra) living in the environs of fish ponds designated as breeding areas, notwithstanding the fact that the otter is a species in need of strict protection under the terms of Annex IV to Directive 92/43/EEC.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-352/01: Action brought on 20 December 2001 by DaimlerChrysler AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.3.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 68/15
Decision contested befo-         refusal of registration by the            vehicles to leasing companies as stock, and was party to
re the Board of Appeal:          examiner                                  agreements restricting the grant of discounts in Belgium.
Decision of the Board of         rejection of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Mercedes-Benz agents are
                                                                           integrated in the Mercedes-Benz distribution organisation and
Grounds of claim:                —     no obstacles to registration
                                                                           that agreements with commercial agents and commission
                                       under Article 7(1)(e) of Regu-
                                                                           agents are genuine agency agreements to which the prohibition
                                       lation (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                           on restrictive practices set out in Article 81(1) EC does not
                                 —     sufficient     distinctiveness      apply. The applicant further submits that everything of which
                                       under Article 7(1)(b) of            the Commission accuses Mercedes-Benz regarding the obstruc-
                                       Regulation (EC) No 40/94.           tion of exports from Germany fails to meet the conditions laid
                                                                           down in Article 81(1) EC. Mercedes-Benz is entitled to lay
                                                                           down rules for both its commercial agents and its dealers on
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-             sales to non-resident persons. Irrespective of the foregoing, the
    munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                applicant claims that the documentary evidence does not
                                                                           establish that Mercedes-Benz obstructed cross-border sales
                                                                           to foreign consumers. Mercedes-Benz’s sole interest was in
                                                                           restricting transactions with non-authorised resellers.
                                                                           The applicant claims that its instruction to agents to require a
                                                                           15 % advance payment from foreign customers was not a part
Action brought on 20 December 2001 by DaimlerChrys-                        of any agreements in restraint of trade between Mercedes-Benz
ler AG against the Commission of the European Com-                         and its agents. The purpose of that instruction was to reduce
                              munities                                     Mercedes-Benz’s risk exposure and it concerned the conditions
                                                                           applicable to contracts for new cars, which were merely
                          (Case T-352/01)                                  negotiated by the agent and in which he did not participate.
                                                                           Irrespective of the foregoing, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           requirement of deposits from foreign customers is materially
                           (2002/C 68/27)                                  justified.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           The applicant further claims that the restrictions on German
                                                                           agents as regards the brokerage of sales of new cars to leasing
                                                                           companies do not infringe Article 81(1) EC because they
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  constitute permissible instructions to commercial agents. Even
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 if there were an infringement of Article 81(1) EC, it would in
European Communities on 20 December 2001 by DaimlerCh-                     any case be exempted under Article 81(3) EC in conjunction
rysler AG, Stuttgart (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold and             with Regulation No. 1475/95 (1).
W. Bosch, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Furthermore, the applicant submits that Mercedes-Benz did
                                                                           not carry out, or participate in, any ‘sale-price fixing’ in
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 10 October 2001                   Belgium which can be imputed to the applicant. Finally, it
      (COMP/36.246 — Mercedes-Benz);                                       claims that the special status of commercial agents is in itself
                                                                           enough to preclude the imposition of a fine on the basis of the
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of          ‘German’ facts, and that, in any case, it was entitled to assume,
      that decision;                                                       on the basis of earlier statements by the Commission, that its
                                                                           previous practice did not infringe Article 81(1) EC. In addition,
                                                                           the applicant submits that even if the application of
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                           Article 81(1) is not precluded on legal grounds, the fine is, in
                                                                           any case, clearly excessive.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on
                                                                               the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories
By the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of                    of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995
EUR 71 825 million on the applicant for three infringements                    L 145 p. 25)
of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. The Commission found that
the applicant and its legal predecessors took measures to
restrict parallel trade, restricted the supply of passenger motor


title: Case T-203/11: Order of the General Court of 18 June 2012 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Coach and bus services between Member States — Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Lack — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/21

         Order of the General Court of 18 June 2012 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission
   (Case T-203/11) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Coach and bus services between Member States - Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Lack - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2012/C 227/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions (Beuvillers, France) (represented by: É. Deshoulières, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for compensation for the damage purportedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Transports Schiocchet — Excursions shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-525/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 13 October 2016 — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia S.A. v Autoridade da Concorrência

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 13 October 2016 — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia S.A. v Autoridade da Concorrência
   (Case C-525/16)
   (2017/C 014/26)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia S.A.

      Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

      Other party: GDA — Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes, ‘GDA’

      Questions referred

               1.

               If, in infringement proceedings, facts concerning the effects of any charging of discriminatory prices by an undertaking in a dominant position in relation to one of the retail undertakings, which prejudice that undertaking with regard to its competitors, are proven or evidenced, in order for that conduct to be characterised as placing at a competitive disadvantage within the meaning of subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU must there have been an additional assessment of the gravity, relevance or importance of those effects on the affected undertaking’s competitive position and/or ability to compete, in particular as regards its capacity to absorb the difference in the costs incurred in the context of the wholesale service?

               2.

               If there is proof or evidence in infringement proceedings that the discriminatory prices charged by an undertaking in a dominant position are of significantly reduced importance for the costs incurred, income obtained and profitability achieved by the affected retail undertaking, is an assessment that there is no evidence of abuse of a dominant position and prohibited practices compatible with an interpretation consistent with subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU and the case-law established in the judgments in British Airways
                   (1) and Clearstream? (2)

               3.

               Or, on the contrary, is such a circumstance insufficient to preclude the conduct in question from being characterised as abuse of a dominant position and a prohibited practice within the meaning of subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, that circumstance being of relevance only for the purposes of determining the degree of liability or punishment of the infringing undertaking?

               4.

               Must the phrase thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage in subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as corresponding to the requirement that the advantage arising from the discrimination must in turn correspond to a minimum percentage of the affected undertaking’s costs structure?

               5.

               Must the phrase thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage in subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as corresponding to the requirement that the advantage arising from the discrimination must in turn correspond to a minimum difference between the average costs incurred by the competitor undertakings in the wholesale service in question?

               6.

               May the phrase thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage in subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as corresponding to the requirement that the advantage arising from the discrimination must, in the context of the market and service in question, correspond to values higher than the differences indicated in […] Tables 5, 6 and 7, for the purposes of characterising the conduct as a prohibited practice?

               7.

               If the answer to any of questions (iv) to (vi) is in the affirmative, how must such a minimum threshold of significance for the disadvantage in relation to the costs structure or the average costs incurred by the competitor undertakings in the retail service in question be defined?

               8.

               If such a minimum threshold has been defined, does the failure to meet it in each year enable the presumption in the Clearstream judgment, according to which it must be considered that ‘the application to a trading partner of different prices for equivalent services continuously over a period of five years and by an undertaking having a de facto monopoly on the upstream market could not fail to cause that partner a competitive disadvantage’, (3) to be rebutted?

      (1)  C-95/04 P, EU:C:2007:166.

      (2)  T-301/04, EU:T:2009:317.

      (3)  Paragraphs 194 and 195.


title: Joined Cases C-362/13, C-363/13 and C-407/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13) v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Maritime sector — Ferries making crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 3(1) — Concept of ‘fixed-term employment contract’  — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of fixed-term contracts — Penalties — Conversion of the employment contract into one of indefinite duration — Conditions)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13) v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
   (Joined Cases C-362/13, C-363/13 and C-407/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Maritime sector - Ferries making crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 3(1) - Concept of ‘fixed-term employment contract’ - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of fixed-term contracts - Penalties - Conversion of the employment contract into one of indefinite duration - Conditions))
   2014/C 292/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13)

      Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, who are employed as seafarers under fixed-term employment contracts on board ferries making sea crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State.

               2.

               The provisions of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that fixed-term employment contracts have to indicate their duration, but not their termination date.

               3.

               Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration only in circumstances where the worker concerned has been employed continuously under such contracts by the same employer for a period longer than one year, the employment relationship being considered to be continuous where the fixed-term employment contracts are separated by time lapses of less than or equal to 60 days. It is, however, for the referring court to satisfy itself that the conditions of application and the effective implementation of that legislation result in a measure that is adequate to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

      OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-439/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/34

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   (Case T-439/08)
   (2008/C 327/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Joséphidès, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (‘the Agency’) of 1 August 2008, by which the Agency, acting under the Commission's supervision, denied the applicant access, requested by her letter of 3 March 2008, to certain documents in file No 07/0122 relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008 relating to the individual decision to award subsidies within the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme, Jean Monnet sub-programme;

               —

               order the Agency and the Commission to pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of 1 August 2008 denying her access to documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus and, second, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008 relating to an individual decision to award subsidies within the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme, Jean Monnet sub-programme, to the extent that it recommends the award of a subsidy to the University of Cyprus for the creation of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence.
   In support of her application for annulment of the decision of the Agency of 1 August 2008, she claims that the Agency infringed her personal right, as derived, in particular, from the principle of transparency contained in Article 1, second paragraph, and Article 6 TEU, Article 255 EC and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, to have access to certain documents in so far as her name was used by third parties (the University of Cyprus) in an administrative application file, with the aim of deriving benefit from it without her consent. She claims that in those circumstances, she is entitled to verify the precise content and/or the accuracy of the personal data and the aim and context of its use.
   In addition, she submits that the Director of the Agency is not competent to decide on her confirmatory application for access to the documents and that its decision of 1 August 2008 was taken in violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and the Commission Rules of Procedure.
   None the less, if the Court of First Instance were to consider that the Director of the Agency was competent to adopt the contested decision, the applicant claims that that decision was taken in violation of several provisions of Regulation No 1049/2001, in particular Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 15(1). According to the applicant, the Agency also misinterpreted several other provisions of the same regulation, in particular Articles 4(4), 4(5), 4(1)(b) and 4(2) and misapplied the principle of transparency and the concept of overriding public interest. The applicant also puts forward a plea alleging that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned.
   In support of her application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in failing to verify whether the applicant had consented to her personal data appearing in the application form submitted to the Commission by the University of Cyprus. She takes the view that the Commission ought to have found a substantial irregularity in the draft submitted and revoked its decision or taken other necessary measures.
   The applicant also submits that the Commission erred in its analysis of the eligibility criteria in respect of the application submitted by the University of Cyprus.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-126/12: Action brought on 20 March 2012 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/8

         Action brought on 20 March 2012 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)
   (Case T-126/12)
   2012/C 157/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Interroll Holding AG (Sant’ Antonino, Switzerland) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Inspired by efficiency’ (application No 9 725 359) for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 20, 35, 39 and 42.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the trade mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods and services at issue in the proceedings.


title: Case C-99/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2013 — Guy Kleynen v Council of Ministers

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2013 — Guy Kleynen v Council of Ministers
   (Case C-99/13)
   2013/C 141/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Guy Kleynen

      Defendant: Council of Ministers

      Question referred

   Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 36 and 41 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing and maintaining a system of higher taxation of the interest paid by non-resident banks through the application of a tax exemption or a lower tax rate solely to the interest paid by Belgian banks?


title: Case T-435/08: Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Tokita Management Service v OHIM — Eminent Food (TOMATOBERRY)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/48

         Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Tokita Management Service v OHIM — Eminent Food (TOMATOBERRY)
   (Case T-435/08)
   (2008/C 313/86)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Tokita Management Service Corp. (Saitama, Japan) (represented by: P. Brownlow and N. Jenkins, Solicitors and A. Bryson, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eminent Food BV (Bussum, Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 in case R 1219/2007-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TOMATOBERRY’ for goods in class 31 — application No 3 797 909

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 3 344 711 of the figurative mark ‘Tomberry’ for goods and services in classes 31, 35 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the trade marks concerned are highly similar visually and conceptually; infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and/or Article 73 and/or Article 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the Opposition Division's finding that the opposition must be upheld on the ground of Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 was correct.


title: Case C-5/09: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-5/09) (1)

   2009/C 282/61

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Octava, by orders of that court of 4 July 1995, 13 September 1995 and 15 November 1995 in the cases of Careda SA, FEMARA and FACOMARE respectively against Administración General del Estado (Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda) (Cases C-370/95, C-371/95 and C-372/95)

text:
No C 16/ 10              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The appellant claims that the Court should :                             must Article 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning
                                                                         that it precludes the application of legislation of Member
— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First                 State A prohibiting an undertaking established in Member
      Instance of the European Communities on 28 September               State B from selling in Member State A a periodical
      1995 in Case T-95/94 (*) and take all the ensuing legal            produced in Member State B, where that periodical contains
      steps, and, in particular, refer the case back to the Court        prize puzzle competitions or games which are lawfully
      of First Instance for a decision on the merits,                    organized in Member State B ?
— order the applicants in the proceedings before the Court
      of First Instance to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Infringement of Community law:                                           Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección
                                                                         Octava, by orders of that court of 4 July 1995 , 13 September
                                                                         1995 and 15 November 1995 in the cases of Careda
— the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the                      SA, FEMARA and FACOMARE respectively against
      contested decision was a decision rejecting a complaint;           Administración General del Estado ( Ministerio de
      under Community law as it stands at present, that                                      Economía y Hacienda )
      category of decision does not exist in the field of State
      aid,                                                                       ( Cases C-3 70/95 , C-371/95 and C-372/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/22 )
— the Court of First Instance wrongly examined the
      statement of reasons in relation to the complainants and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the arguments and facts set out in their complaint; a              European Communities by orders of the Audiencia
      complainant who subsequently pleads, in the context of             Nacional (National High Court), Sala de lo
      an action for annulment, the inadequacy of the                     Contencioso-Administrativo ( Chamber for Contentious
      statement of reasons for a decision may only do so in the          Administrative Proceedings ), Sección Octava ( Eighth
      same capacity as any other applicant to whom the                   Section ) of 4 July 1995 , 13 September 1995 and
      decision is of direct and individual concern,                      15 November 1995 , which were received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 30 November 1995 , for preliminary rulings in
— the Court of First Instance carried out, in the guise of a             the cases of Careda SA, FEMARA ( Federación Nacional de
      review of the statement of reasons, a review of the error          Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar ) and
      of assessment, and imposed a new procedural                        FACOMARE (Asociación Española de Empresarios de
      obligation, namely an obligation to undertake an                   Máquinas Recreativas ) respectively against Administración
      exchange of views and arguments with the complainant.              General del Estado ( Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda ) on
      The grant to a complainant of a right of access to the             the following questions :
      documentation in a case in which there is no obligation
      to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 93 (2 ) of
                                                                         1.     does the concept of passing on the tax to the
      the EC Treaty constitutes an infringement of the
                                                                         consumer, within the meaning of the sixth Directive
      applicable rules on State aid.
                                                                         ( 77/388/EEC ) (*) of 17 May 1977 and of the rest of the
                                                                         Community legal order, and for determining the concept of
( ] ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p . 19 .                            turnover tax, require always and in every case the law
                                                                         concerning the tax in question to lay down expressly that the
                                                                         said tax may be passed on to the consumer or is it sufficient,
                                                                         on the other hand, if the tax can be deemed, on a reasonable
                                                                         interpretation of such law, to be actually included in the
                                                                         price paid by the consumer ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht               2 . May a tax which is levied as a fixed charge of a large
Wien by order of that court of 15 September 1995 in the case             amount on the total turnover or revenue generated and
of Vereinigte FamilaprefS Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs                 which takes account of such turnover, if it is ultimately paid
                 GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag
                                                                         by the consumer, be regarded as a turnover tax although
                          ( Case C-368/95 )                              there is no express record ( invoice ) of passing on the tax to
                             ( 96/C 16/21 )                              the consumer, the transactions in question being automatic,
                                                                         by the use of coins, and there being a price for use. As so
                                                                         framed, does it infringe Article 33 of the sixth Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 77/388/EEC ) on value added tax and is it therefore
European Communities by order of the Handelsgericht                      incompatible with that Directive ?
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 15 September 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 29 November
                                                                          0 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereinigte
Familaprefê Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v.
Heinrich Bauer Verlag on the following question:


title: Joined Cases T-481/13 and T-421/15: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Systran v Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/31

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Systran v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-481/13 and T-421/15) (1)

   (2017/C 357/40)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case T-202/13: Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Group’Hygiène v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/33

         Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Group’Hygiène v Commission
   (Case T-202/13)
   2013/C 171/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Group’Hygiène (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      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 lack of competence on the part of the Commission, inasmuch as the Commission may not, on the basis of its implementing powers, amend essential elements of the basic legislation. Since Directive 2013/2/EU (1) expanded the definition of packaging to products which are not referred to in Directive 94/62/EC (2), Directive 2013/2/EU is therefore vitiated by lack of competence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of the general principles of European Union law on the obligation to state reasons as Directive 2013/2/EU does not explain the reasons why only some rolls, tubes and cylinders constitute packaging. The applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the measure was particularly necessary because the contested measure constitutes a change in position as against the relevant previous positions of the bodies of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Directive 94/62/EC inasmuch as it is obvious that rolls, tubes and cylinders may not be categorised as packaging as a roll, tube or cylinder is a purely internal part of a product and does not correspond to the legal definition of packaging used in Directive 94/62/EC.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment as Directive 2013/2/EU treats comparable situations differently inasmuch as the directive does not categorise industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders as packaging, although industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders and non-industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders are in an objectively comparable situation, and inasmuch as products with characteristics similar to rolls, tubes and cylinders are excluded from the category of packaging.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as Directive 2013/2/EU abruptly, and without transitional measures, calls in question the approach taken by the European Union legislature according to which rolls, tubes and cylinders are not packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as the contested measure gives rise to disproportionate financial consequences for the economic operators in the sector because, unlike the other manufacturers subject to the legislation relating to packaging, manufacturers of rolls, tubes and cylinders cannot reduce the volume of rolls, tubes and cylinders produced as they are absolutely necessary and integrated into the products.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10.

      (2)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).


title: Case T-469/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Dordal v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/64

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Dordal v Commission
   (Case T-469/14)
   2014/C 253/88
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dordal, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-117/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/34

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-117/10)
   2010/C 113/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2010/10/EC (1) of 20 November 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013.

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council, by adopting the contested decision, has overturned the Commission's decision resulting from the proposal for appropriate measures in Point 196 of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines and from its unconditional acceptance by Poland, obliging the latter to bring to an end an existing aid scheme for the purchase of agricultural land by 31 December 2009 at the latest. Under the guise of exceptional circumstances, the Council has in fact allowed Poland to maintain that scheme until the expiry of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines on 31 December 2013. The circumstances put forward by the Council as the grounds for its decision are self evidently not exceptional circumstances of such a nature as to justify the decision taken and make no allowance for the Commission's decision on that scheme. In support of its action for annulment, the Commission will put forward four pleas in law:

               (a)

               In the first place, it considers that the Council was not competent to act under the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC because it did not decide on the Polish application within the three-month deadline fixed by the fourth subparagraph of that provision and because in any event the aid which it approved was existing aid which Poland had committed to eliminating by the end of 2009 when it accepted the appropriate measures proposed to it by the Commission.

               (b)

               Secondly, the Council has misused its powers, seeking to neutralise the determination that aid measures which Poland was free to retain until the end of 2009 but not after that date could be kept in place until 2013.

               (c)

               Next, in its third plea, the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation which applies to Member States and also between institutions. By its decision, the Council has released Poland from its obligation of cooperation with the Commission in relation to the appropriate measures accepted by that Member State regarding existing aid for purchase of agricultural land in the context of the cooperation established by Article 88(1) EC.

               (d)

               By its final plea, the Commission will argue that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment insofar it found that exceptional circumstances existed which justify the adoption of the approved measure.

      (1)  OJ L 4, 8.1.2010, p. 89


title: Case T-431/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/42

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)
   (Case T-431/14)
   2014/C 282/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2014 in Case R 2019/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CHOICE’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69  163

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009