title: Case C-583/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Sintax Trading OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliamet (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Article 13(1) — Powers of the customs authorities to establish the infringement of an intellectual property right)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Sintax Trading OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliamet
   (Case C-583/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market - Article 13(1) - Powers of the customs authorities to establish the infringement of an intellectual property right))
   2014/C 175/10
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sintax Trading OÜ

      Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliamet

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Articles 13(1) and 17 of and recitals 1, 2 and 3 in the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Measures intended to prevent the placing on the market of counterfeit and pirated goods — Procedure to determine whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right — Competence of the customs authorities with respect to the ascertainment of an infringement of an intellectual property right — Right of the customs authorities to initiate of their own motion the procedure for determining whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right without it being necessary for the right-holder to initiate the procedure

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the customs authorities, in the absence of any initiative by the holder of the intellectual property right, from initiating and conducting the proceedings referred to in that provision themselves, provided that the relevant decisions taken by those authorities may be subject to appeal ensuring that the rights derived by individuals from EU law and, in particular, from that regulation are safeguarded.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23. 2. 2013.


title: Case C-508/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Český telekomunikační úřad v T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s., Vodafone Czech Republic a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) — Costing of universal service obligations — Taking account of the rate of return on equity capital — Direct effect — Scope ratione temporis)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Český telekomunikační úřad v T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s., Vodafone Czech Republic a.s.
   (Case C-508/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) - Costing of universal service obligations - Taking account of the rate of return on equity capital - Direct effect - Scope ratione temporis))
   (2015/C 389/13)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Český telekomunikační úřad

      Defendants: T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s., Vodafone Czech Republic a.s.

      Intervening parties: O2 Czech Republic a.s., formerly Telefónica Czech Republic a.s., UPC Česká republika s.r.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding the net cost of the universal service obligation including the ‘reasonable profit’ of the provider of that service, fixed at the rate of return on equity capital that would be required by an undertaking comparable to the universal service provider considering whether or not to provide the service of general economic interest for the whole duration of the period of entrustment, taking into account the level of risk.

               2.

               Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/22 must be interpreted as having direct effect and they may be relied on directly before a national court by individuals to challenge a decision of a national regulatory authority.

               3.

               Directive 2002/22 must be interpreted to the effect that it is not applicable for the purpose of determining the amount of the net cost of the obligations relating to the universal service provided by the designated undertaking during the period prior to the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union, that is to say, for the year 2004, between 1 January and 30 April 2004.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case C-224/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Sergio Alfonso Lorrai (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Fundamental rights — Excessive length of the criminal proceedings — Stay of criminal proceedings, for an indefinite period, in the event of sickness of the accused making him incapable of consciously participating in the proceedings — Irreversible sickness of the accused — Failure to implement European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/23

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Sergio Alfonso Lorrai
   (Case C-224/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Fundamental rights - Excessive length of the criminal proceedings - Stay of criminal proceedings, for an indefinite period, in the event of sickness of the accused making him incapable of consciously participating in the proceedings - Irreversible sickness of the accused - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   2014/C 52/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy)

      Criminal proceedings against

   Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal di Cagliari — Interpretation of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights read together with Article 6 TEU — Excessive length of the criminal proceedings — National legislation laying down the obligation to stay criminal proceedings, for an indefinite period, in the event of sickness of the accused, making him incapable of consciously participating in the proceedings — Obligation to subject the accused to periodic checks — Irreversible sickness of the accused.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 16 March 2004 In Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf and from the Bundesgerichtshof): AOK Bundesverband and Others v Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co., Mundipharma GmbH, Gödecke GmbH, Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   16 March 2004
   In Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf and from the Bundesgerichtshof): AOK Bundesverband and Others v Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co., Mundipharma GmbH, Gödecke GmbH, Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (1)

   (Competition - Undertakings - Sickness funds - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC - Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products))
   (2004/C 94/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) and by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before those courts between AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft, See-Krankenkasse and Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (C-264/01), Mundipharma GmbH (C-306/01), Gödecke GmbH (C-354/01), Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (C-355/01), on the interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Groups of sickness funds, such as the AOK Bundesverband, the Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), the Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, the Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, the Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, the Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, the Bundesknappschaft and the See-Krankenkasse, do not constitute undertakings or associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81 EC when they determine fixed maximum amounts corresponding to the upper limit of the price of medicinal products whose cost is borne by sickness funds.

      (1)  OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001, and OJ L 348 of 08.12.2001.


title: Case T-589/08: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme — Rejection of bid — Award criteria — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-589/08) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme - Rejection of bid - Award criteria - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency)
   2011/C 113/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application for the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 13 October 2008, rejecting the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open invitation to tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (2008/S 72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer and, secondly, claim for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-229/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VALLON (V)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/43

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VALLON (V)
   (Case T-229/07)
   (2007/C 199/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vallon GmbH.
   Form of order sought

               —

               order that the subject matter of the action be registered as a Community trade mark to distinguish goods in class 9.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of a letter ‘V’ (application No 2.669.513) for goods and services in classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vallon GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark No 51.037 (the letter V against a white background), for goods in class 9 (Apparatus for checking and supervising).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for a Community mark for goods in class 9 rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

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


title: Case T-24/02: Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/53
      entitlement of the defendant to investigate cartel cases and        Chemicals Co. Ltd., represented by Mr. Martin Klusmann
      to adopt prohibition Decisions, the rules on limitation             and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
      in Regulation No. 2988/74 (2) should be considered                  Düsseldorf (Germany).
      applicable to declaratory prohibition decisions.
—     The adoption of a prohibition decision is time-barred               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      under general principles of Community Law. It is stated
      in this regard that where there is no doubt that the alleged        —     annul the Defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695 final of
      conduct was terminated more than five years before an                     21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
      investigation was opened, there is no need and no                         Vitamins, so far as Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd. is
      justification for a declaratory decision, because there is                concerned;
      no place for a cease and desist order, as contained in
      Article 2 of the contested Decision, or any other form of           —     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
      penalty to be imposed on the applicant by the defendant.
      Alternatively, the rationale for limitation periods in the
      European Union is that after a certain period of time it is
      in the interest of the proper functioning of the legal              Pleas in law and main arguments
      system that infringements of the law should no longer be
      investigated or lead to any form of ‘punishment’ of the
      party concerned.                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
                                                                          upon in Case T-22/02 (Sumitomo Chemical/Commission, not
                                                                          yet published in the OJ).
—     The defendant was not competent within the meaning of
      the second paragraph of Article 230 EC to adopt the
      contested Decision, as it thereby exceeded its powers
      under the Treaty and Regulation No. 17/62. The defend-
      ant is not empowered by Article 3 of Regulation No. 17,
      or by any other provision, to adopt a declaratory decision
      where the infringement has already been terminated
      outside the limitation period provided for in Article 1 of          Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena Lebe-
      Regulation No. 2988/74.                                             def-Caponi against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-24/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/103)
(1) Notice not yet published in the OJ.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974
    concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement                         (Language of the case: French)
    of actions under the rules of the European Economic Community
    relating to transport and competition (OJ L 319, 29.11.1974,
    p. 1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena
                                                                          Lebedef-Caponi, residing at Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine
Chemicals Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the Euro-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        pean Communities
                                                                          —     annul the express decision No 40263 of 6 November
                           (Case T-23/02)                                       2001 by which the appointing authority replied to the
                                                                                applicant’s complaint No 334/01 of 18 July 2001 by
                                                                                fixing the compensation for the non-material damage
                         (2002/C 109/102)                                       suffered by her in the sum of 1 500 euros;
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     award the applicant the sum of BEF 800 000, assessed as
                                                                                amounting now to the sum of BEF 1 000 000, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
                                                                                result of the lateness in drawing up her staff report
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       (placed belatedly in her personal file) for the period 1993-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      1995 and the lateness in drawing up her staff reports for
European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine                          the periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999;
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/54                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.            company that wishes to acquire merchants, i.e. process
                                                                          payments made with a credit card by customers at those
                                                                          merchants’ businesses, must first issue a certain number of
                                                                          credit cards to customers. The applicants specialise in acquiring
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           activities.
The applicant claims that she has suffered non-material                   According to the applicants, the contested decision violates
damage on account of a breach of the principle of sound                   the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.
administration and failure to act in good faith and to fulfil the
duty of cooperation as regards the drawing up of her
consecutive staff reports. In addition, according to the appli-           Firstly, the applicants state that the decision lacks adequate
cant, those faults have been repeated time and again and testify          reasoning on why the rule in question does not constitute a
to a vexatious attitude.                                                  significant barrier to trade.
                                                                          The applicants also claim that the Commission erred in law
                                                                          when substituting reasoning under Article 81(3) EC Treaty for
                                                                          reasoning under Article 81(1) EC Treaty. According to the
                                                                          applicants, the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of
                                                                          a restriction on competition can only be assessed under
Action brought on 4 February 2002 by First Data Corpor-                   Article 81(3) EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, however,
ation, FDR Limited and First Data Merchant Services                       the Commission seems to argue that the rule in question falls
Corporation against the Commission of the European                        outside the scope of Article 81(1) EC Treaty since its benefits
                            Communities                                   outweigh the restriction on competition. This type of reasoning
                                                                          can, according to the applicants, only be applied under
                           (Case T-28/02)                                 Article 81(3) EC Treaty.
                         (2002/C 109/104)                                 Finally, the applicants claim that the rule in question does
                                                                          restrict competition. The consequence of the rule is that, in
                    (Language of the case: English)                       order to start acquiring activities, a company must first build
                                                                          up banking activities to be able to issue cards to customers.
                                                                          This is, according to the applicants, a barrier to entry into the
                                                                          market of acquiring activities. Furthermore, the applicants
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 point out that the application of this rule is unclear, since the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                number of cards to be issued is dependent on undefined
European Communities on 4 February 2002 by First Data                     criteria. According to the applicants, the Commission should
Corporation, FDR Limited and First Data Merchant Services                 have conducted an investigation on whether this rule is applied
Corporation, represented by Mr Pierre Bos and Mr Morten                   in a uniform and non-discriminatory way.
Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001
      relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                    Action brought on 13 February 2002 by Wolfgang
      No COMP/29.373 — Visa International) as regards                              Leonhardt against the European Parliament
      Article 1, fifth indent;
                                                                                (Case T-30/02)
—     order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by the
      applicants in the present proceedings.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/105)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                              (Language of the case: French)
The applicants contest the Decision of the Commission that
the ‘no-acquiring-without-issuing rule’ of the Visa Corporation           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
is not an appreciable restriction on trade and therefore falls            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
outside the scope of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and                   13 February 2002 by Wolfgang Leonhardt, residing in La
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. This rule requires that a                Hulpe (Belgium), represented by H. Tagaras, avocat.


title: Case C-231/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Belgian State

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-231/07)
   (2007/C 170/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tiercé Ladbroke SA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Question referred
   Is the supply of the following services by an agent, acting on behalf of a principal who operates a business of taking bets on horse-races and other sporting events, exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 13(B)(d)(3) (1) of the Sixth Directive, which exempts transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts, …, payments …: namely, taking of the bets in the name of the principal; recording the bets; confirming to the customer, by the issue of a betting slip, that the bet has been made; collecting the monies; paying out the winnings; assuming sole responsibility, vis-à-vis the principal, for management of the collected monies and for any thefts or losses of money; and receiving remuneration for those activities in the form of a commission from the principal?

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


title: Case F-20/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 — De Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the General Court after annulment — Appointment — Official advancing to a higher function group by open competition — Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new rules — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 — De Luca v Commission
   (Case F-20/06)
   (Civil service - Officials - Referral back to the General Court after annulment - Appointment - Official advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new rules - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2013/C 147/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February 2005 appointing the applicant, an official already graded at A*10 and a successful candidate in a competition for grades A5/A4, to a post as an administrator in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security in so far as it alters her classification in grade from A*10 to A*9.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mrs De Luca and the European Commission must bear their own costs in the two sets of proceedings brought before the Tribunal;

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission must bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs of Mrs De Luca incurred in the proceedings brought before the General Court of the European Union;

               4.

               Declares that the Council of the European Union must bear its own costs.


title: Case C-333/09: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Caen — France) — Sophie Noël v SCP Brouard Daude, liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province SA, Centre de Gestion et d'Étude AGS IDF EST (Preliminary reference — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — Principle of equal treatment — Redundancy for economic reasons — No link with Community law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/17

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Caen — France) — Sophie Noël v SCP Brouard Daude, liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province SA, Centre de Gestion et d'Étude AGS IDF EST
   (Case C-333/09) (1)

   (Preliminary reference - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Principle of equal treatment - Redundancy for economic reasons - No link with Community law - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   2010/C 51/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil de prud’hommes of Caen — France

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophie Noël

      Defendant: SCP Brouard Daude, liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province SA, Centre de Gestion et d'Étude AGS IDF EST

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil de Prud’hommes (Labour Tribunal) of Caen (France) — Interpretation of Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Interpretation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — Redundancy for economic reasons — Redundancy for personnel reasons — National provisions presumed contrary the abovementioned standards — Breach of the principle of equal treatment

      Operative part

   The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Conseil de Prud’hommes of Caen by decision of 11 June 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-453/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of  23 November 2005  in Volker Ludwig v Finanzamt Luckenwalde

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 23 November 2005 in Volker Ludwig v Finanzamt Luckenwalde
   (Case C-453/05)
   (2006/C 60/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg of 23 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling between Volker Ludwig and Finanzamt Luckenwalde on the following questions:

               1.

               Is there negotiation within the meaning of Article 13B(d)(1) (1) of Directive 77/388/EEC, when a taxable person, in some circumstances represented by a subagent, negotiates credit for clients canvassed by it from various providers, with which it has previously negotiated general terms and conditions for its clients and from which it receives a commission for the negotiation of a product, even if, in the process, it investigates and analyses the financial situation of clients and their personal and financial needs, or is that service a dependent service ancillary to the principal service, which is a financial service not covered by Article 13B(1)(d)?

               2.

               Is it a precondition of the turnover tax exemption in respect of negotiation of credit under Article 13B(d)(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC that

                           (a)

                           there is a direct contractual relationship between the negotiator, on the one hand, and the borrower and/or the lender on the other, and

                           (b)

                           the negotiator establishes contact not only with the borrower, but also with the lender, and himself negotiates the details of the contract with the latter,

                     or does the tax exemption also cover commission payments received by a taxable person from a main agent (for which he works as a subagent and in whose name he acts vis-à-vis its clients) in return for those clients entering into credit agreements with providers indicated by him, but without the subagent establishing contact with the lender?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-415/03: Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Cofradía de Pescadores San Pedro de Bermeo, Vizcaya, and Others against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 47/32                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            21.2.2004
Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Regione                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                             —     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C5/ME/jlsD(2003)
                                                                                358046 of 6 October 2003 on the detailed rules for the
                          (Case T-408/03)                                          recovery of the contribution paid by the European
                                                                                Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the ‘Messina
                           (2004/C 47/62)                                          Palermo Motorway major project’ partially cancelled by
                                                                                Commission         Decision        No       109206       (ERDF
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                 No 93.05.03.001 — Arinco No 93.IT.16.009) of 5 Sep-
                                                                                tember 2002 and the Debit Note No 3240406591 of
                                                                                25 September 2002 and the other acts resulting from it;
                                                                                Order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Annul       Commission           Decision       BUDG/C5/ME/
      jlsD(2003)358046 of 6 October 2003 on the detailed
      rules for the recovery of the contribution paid by the                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
      European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the                      those put forward in Case T-392/03 Regione Siciliana v
      ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’ projects, Debit                Commission (1).
      Notes No 3240304871 of 14 August 2003 and
      No 3240303927 of 13 August 2003, and the other acts
      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European                (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
      Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-392/03 Regione Siciliana v
Commission (1).
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.         Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Cofradía de
                                                                             Pescadores San Pedro de Bermeo, Vizcaya, and Others
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-415/03)
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-                                                   (2004/C 47/64)
                              munities
                          (Case T-414/03)                                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2004/C 47/63)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             the European Communities on 18 December 2003 against
                                                                             Council of the European Union by Cofradía de Pescadores San
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Pedro de Bermeo,Vizcaya, and Others established at Guipúzcoa
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   and Vizcaya, Spain, represented by the lawyers Emiliano
European Communities on 11 December 2003 by the Regione                      Garayar Gutiérrez, Gervasio Martínez-Villaseñor, Anna García
Siciliana, represented by G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato.                   Casatillo and Miguel Troncoso Ferrer.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 47/33
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:               the permitted anchovy catches in ICES zone VIII initially
                                                                            assigned to them, contravenes both the principle of relative
                                                                            stability and the Act of Accession (Article 161(1)(f)). Thus, the
—     Declare that the Community has incurred non-contrac-                  Council also acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty,
      tual liability by making a deduction from the percentage              infringing upon the legitimate expectations of the economic
      of the Total Allowable Catch of anchovies to which Spain              agents involved.
      and the fleet authorised to fish for anchovies in ICES
      zone VIII are entitled in the years 1996 to 2001, by
      transferring Portugal’s quota in ICES zone IX for it to be            The applicants also allege that the Council has misused its
      fished by France in ICES zone VIII;                                   powers.
—     Compel the Community, represented by the Council, to
      compensate the applicants for the real and certain harm
      suffered as a result of the acts of the Council, comprising
      both consequential damage and loss of profits, in the
      terms set out in the present application and its annexes;
                                                                            Action brought on 22 December 2003 by La Mer Tech-
                                                                            nology, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     Order the Community, represented by the Council, to                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      pay all the costs incurred by the applicants in the context
      of the present proceedings.
                                                                                (Case T-418/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/65)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of
                                                                            the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:
                                                                                English)
The purpose of the present action is to seek compensation for
the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the removal
between 1996 and 2001 of part of the Total Allowable Catch                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(TAC) of anchovies to which Spain is entitled in ICES                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
(International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) zone VIII,           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
following the authorisation granted by the Council of the                   22 December 2003 by La Mer Technology, Inc., New York,
European Union for the transfer of Portugal’s quota in ICES                 USA, represented by Dr V. v. Bomhard, Dr A. Renck and Dr
zone IX for it to be fished by France in zone ICES VIII.                    A. Pohlmann, lawyers. Laboratoires Goëmar was also a party
                                                                            to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
alleged illegality fulfils all the requirements laid down by the
case-law to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of           1.    annul the Decision of the second Board of Appeal of the
the Community.                                                                    office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) of 23 October 2003 in case R 814/
                                                                                2000-2;
As regards the condition concerning a sufficiently serious                  2.    order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
breach of a superior rule of law, they refer to contravention of
                                                                                defendant.
the principles of relative stability, legal certainty and protection
of legitimate expectations.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
They state, in particular, that the principle of relative stability
serves to guarantee compliance with the quota allocated to                  Applicant for the Com-          La Mer Technology, Inc.
Spain in the Act of Accession, according to which Spain is                  munity trade mark:
entitled to 90 percent and France to 10 percent of anchovy
catches in ICES zone VIII. Accordingly, the quota swaps                     The Community trade             The word mark ‘La Mer’ for goods
provided for in Article 8 (4) (ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 and             mark sought:                    in class 3 (in addition to other
Article 9 (1) thereof must be carried out without changing the                                              things, soaps for the care of
overall balance of percentages laid down in the Act of                                                      human skin and the human body;
Accession. Consequently, the contested authorisation of swaps,                                              perfumery, essential oils, cos-
the result of which is to deprive Spain and the Spanish fleet of                                            metics, hair lotions)


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Cereals, beef and veal)

text:
12.8.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 233/5
2.    As Community law presently stands, Directive 89/398/EEC               munities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — Application for the partial
      and the directives adopted pursuant to it do not prevent Member       annulment of Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April
      States from maintaining in force after the transposition of           1997 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
      Directive 89/398/EEC prior national legislative provisions            Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 on the
      such as those at issue in the main proceedings which apply to         Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      additives authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs intended        Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in so far as
      for particular nutritional uses, even if those provisions are         it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community financing
      based on a classification other than that used in Directive           for the sum of BEF 413 309 611 by way of expenditure
      89/398/EEC.                                                           incurred for the advance payment of export refunds — the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of R. Schintgen, President of
3.    In the absence of any provision in Directive 89/398/EEC itself,       the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
      or in the directives adopted pursuant to Article 4 of the             Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm, and
      Directive, as to the composition of foodstuffs intended for           V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,
      particular nutritional uses or the use of additives or substances     H. von Holstein, Deputy Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      for specific nutritional purposes in the manufacture of that type     given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:
      of product, no relevant Community rules exist, as Community
      law presently stands, on which individuals may rely in order to       1.    dismisses the application;
      challenge national rules on additives and substances for
      nutritional purposes authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs      2.    orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      of the kind at issue in the main proceedings.
4.    Member States are subject, in their monitoring of the composi-        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
      tion of foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and,
      in particular, of additives and substances for nutritional
      purposes used in their manufacture, to the requirements flowing
      from general principles recognised by Community law, and,
      in particular, the principle of the protection of legitimate
      expectations. However, in the main proceedings the relevant
      Community rules could not give rise to a legitimate expectation
      on the part of Arkopharma on which it could reasonably rely.
      It is for the national court to decide whether the rules on the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      free movement of goods within the Community have any
      application to an activity such as that at issue in the main                                    (Sixth Chamber)
      proceedings.
                                                                                of 18 May 2000
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                                                                            in Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      92/49/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (2000/C 233/10)
                            of 18 May 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Cereals, beef                                           in the European Court Reports)
                                and veal)
                                                                            In Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communities
                            (2000/C 233/09)                                 (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                            (Agents: J. Devadder and A. Snoecx, assisted by D. Waelbroeck)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         — application for a declaration that, by adopting and maintai-
                                                                            ning in force Article 2 of the Law of 9 July 1975 on the control
                                                                            of insurance undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      12 August 1994 (Moniteur Belge of 16 September 1994, p.
                     in the European Court Reports)                         23525), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
In Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder,                   1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-
assisted by H. Gilliams) v Commission of the European Com-                  tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life


title: Case C-289/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Showa Denko KK v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Graphite electrodes — Article 81(1) EC — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principle of non bis in idem)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/1

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Showa Denko KK v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-289/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Graphite electrodes - Article 81(1) EC - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle of non bis in idem)
   (2006/C 237/01)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Showa Denko KK (represented by: M. Dolmans and P. Werdmuller, advocaten, and J. Temple-Lang, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Hellström and H. Gading, Agents), Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo, SGL Carbon AG, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo, GrafTech International Ltd, formerly UCAR International Inc., established in Wilmington (United States), SEC Corp., established in Amagasaki (Japan), The Carbide/Graphite Group Inc., established in Pittsburgh (United States)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and Others v Commission annulling in part Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes) and reducing the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Showa Denko KK to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 25.09.2004.


title: Case T-83/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Earlier national figurative mark Arthur — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)
   (Case T-83/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON - Earlier national figurative mark Arthur - No genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character))
   (2016/C 038/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: LTJ Diffusion (Colombes, France) (represented initially by S. Lederman, and subsequently by F. Fajgenbaum, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arthur et Aston SAS (Giberville, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1963/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between LTJ Diffusion and Arthur et Aston SAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LTJ Diffusion to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case C-373/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — H.T. v Land Baden-Württemberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Borders, asylum and immigration — Directive 2004/83/EC — Article 24(1) — Minimum standards for granting refugee or subsidiary protection status — Revocation of residence permit — Conditions for revocation of residence permit — Concept of ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ — Participation of a person with refugee status in the activities of an organisation entered in the list of terrorist organisations drawn up by the European Union)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — H.T. v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-373/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Borders, asylum and immigration - Directive 2004/83/EC - Article 24(1) - Minimum standards for granting refugee or subsidiary protection status - Revocation of residence permit - Conditions for revocation of residence permit - Concept of ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ - Participation of a person with refugee status in the activities of an organisation entered in the list of terrorist organisations drawn up by the European Union))
   (2015/C 279/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H.T.

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that a residence permit, once granted to a refugee, may be revoked, either pursuant to Article 24(1) of that directive, where there are compelling reasons of national security or public order within the meaning of that provision, or pursuant to Article 21(3) of that directive, where there are reasons to apply the derogation from the principle of non-refoulement laid down in Article 21(2) of the same directive;

               2.

               Support for a terrorist organisation included on the list annexed to Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, in the version in force at the material date, may constitute one of the ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83, even if the conditions set out in Article 21(2) of that directive are not met. In order to be able to revoke, on the basis of Article 24(1) of that directive, a residence permit granted to a refugee on the ground that that refugee supports such a terrorist organisation, the competent authorities are nevertheless obliged to carry out, under the supervision of the national courts, an individual assessment of the specific facts concerning the actions of both the organisation and the refugee in question. Where a Member State decides to expel a refugee whose residence permit has been revoked, but suspends the implementation of that decision, it is incompatible with that directive to deny access to the benefits guaranteed by Chapter VII of the same directive, unless an exception expressly laid down in the directive applies.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-152/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/95/EC — Hazardous substances — Electrical and electronic equipment — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/20

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-152/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/95/EC - Hazardous substances - Electrical and electronic equipment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 326/40)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to ensure the transposition within the prescribed period, with regard to the autonomous province of Åland, of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2003 L 37, p. 19)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, with regard to the Åland Islands, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-205/17: Action brought on 20 April 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/16

         Action brought on 20 April 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-205/17)
   (2017/C 195/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not taking all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:260), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 171 217,20 for each day of delay in ensuring compliance with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:260), from the date of judgment in the present case until the date on which the judgment in Case C-343/10 is complied with;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a lump sum payment of EUR 19 303,90 per day, from the date of delivery of the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:260) until the date of the judgment in the present case or until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-343/10, if the latter occurs earlier;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to take all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice concerning the lack of collection systems for urban waste water in the agglomeration of Valle de Güimar, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 91/271 (1), and the lack of urban waste water treatment for the agglomerations of Alhaurín el Grande, Barbate, Isla Cristina, Matalascañas, Tarifa, Valle de Güimar, Peníscola, Aguiño-Carreira-Ribeira, Estepona (San Pedro de Alcántara), Coín, Nerja, Gijón-Este, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Benicarló, Teulada-Moraira, Vigo and Santiago, in accordance with Article 4(1), 4(3) and, as applicable, 4(4) of Directive 91/271.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case C-166/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 5 April 2011 — Angel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 5 April 2011 — Angel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E
   (Case C-166/11)
   2011/C 173/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angel Lorenzo González Alonso

      Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E.

      Question referred

   Must Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1) of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises be interpreted restrictively so as not to cover a contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium to be invested, in varying proportions, in fixed-rate investments, variable-rate investments and financial investment products of the company itself?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31.


title: Case T-65/06: Action brought on  24 February 2006  — FLSmidth v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/25

         Action brought on 24 February 2006 — FLSmidth v Commission
   (Case T-65/06)
   (2006/C 96/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (Valby, Denmark) [represented by: J.-E. Svensson, lawyer]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Primarily, annul the Decision of the Commission, no. C(2005)4634, of 30 November 2005, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC, in case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               secondarily, set the amount of the fine of which the applicant is held jointly and severally liable in Article 2 of the above Decision at 0 EUR in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the Contested Decision the Commission found that the applicant had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the plastic industrial bags sector, affecting Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain, consisting in the fixing of prices and the establishment of common price calculation models, the sharing of markets and the allocation of sales quotas, the assignment of customers, deals and orders, the submission of concerted bids in response to certain invitations to tender and the exchange of individualised information.
   The applicant's infringement related to the conduct of another company, Trioplast Wittenheim SA (‘TW’), which was found to have participated in the cartel in question. Another company, FLS Plast, of which the applicant was the holding company, had owned shares of TW and, for most of the period for which the applicant was found liable, TW was FLS Plast's wholly owned subsidiary. A fine was imposed on TW, and the applicant and FLS Plast were made jointly and severally liable for part of that fine.
   In support of its application, the applicant first of all contends that the Commission did not correctly apply the test for liability of the parent company, as it did not adduce evidence to the effect that there existed circumstances, in respect of the applicant, which could support a presumption of parental influence on TW. The applicant also contends that, in any case, the Commission did not apply the correct legal test since a stricter set of criteria is applicable in a situation such as the one in the present case, where, according to the Commission, TW started participating in the cartel long before its acquisition by the applicant's daughter company, and continued to do so after its disposal. In any event, the applicant considers that it has established that TW decided independently its own conduct on the market and did not carry out instructions given to it by the applicant.
   The applicant also submits that attribution of liability to it is discriminatory, disproportionate and arbitrary since none of the other groups comprised by the Decision had liability attributed to the operating subsidiary, a parent company and the parent's parent company, as was the case with TW and the applicant. Furthermore, even though TW had previously belonged to another group, the Commission did not attribute any liability for TW's participation in the cartel, on any member of that other group. Finally, the liability attributed to the applicant is disproportionate since the applicant was made liable for 85.7 % of the fine imposed on TW even though it had a shareholding in it for only 8 years out of a total of 20 in which the latter was supposedly involved in the cartel.
   The applicant also invokes the latter arguments in support of its secondary claim, to have the fine imposed on it reduced. It further argues that the fine imposed on it is excessive, since the Commission failed to set a separate basic amount of the fine for the applicant, taking into account its lack of responsibility. It also contends that the Commission erred in law by not taking into account certain attenuating circumstances in its favour.
   Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission committed further errors in law by attributing liability to TW for the period 1982 to 1988; imposing on the latter a fine which is disproportionate, excessive and exceeds the 10 % of turnover ceiling; and by not letting the applicant, as a secondary liable party, benefit from the leniency granted to the principally liable party, TW or, at least, granting an independent reduction of fines to the applicant under the leniency notice.


title: Case T-95/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Support scheme for production in the sector of products processed from fruit and vegetables — Exceptional support measures in the beef and veal sector — Tobacco premiums scheme)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-95/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Support scheme for production in the sector of products processed from fruit and vegetables - Exceptional support measures in the beef and veal sector - Tobacco premiums scheme)
   2011/C 13/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello and G. Palmieri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables, beef and veal and raw tobacco

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-359/03: Action brought on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
                                                                                the extent that they apply interest at a default rate of
—     annul the decision not to reimburse to the applicant his                   8,04 %;
      accommodation expenses of EUR 4 200 per month in
      full;                                                               —      order the Commission to pay its own costs and those
                                                                                incurred by the applicant.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By the Decision made on 18 July 2001 the Commission found
                                                                          that the applicant and seven other undertakings had infringed
In support of his application, the applicant submits that the             Article 81 of the EC treaty by participating in a complex of
defendant infringed Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff             agreements and concerted practices in the graphite electrodes
Regulations, in so far as it may not refuse to reimburse                  sector. The same Decision imposed a fine on the applicant and
his accommodation expenses when it did not provide any                    required that it be paid within 3 months of notification with
accommodation and offered no alternative.                                 interest of 8,04 % payable if the fine was not paid by the stated
                                                                          date. This Decision was notified to the applicant under cover
                                                                          of a letter dated 23 July 2003 which also indicated that if the
                                                                          applicant brought proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance against the imposition of the fine, no enforcement
                                                                          proceedings would be taken as long as the case was pending
                                                                          before the court, on condition that the applicant paid interest
                                                                          on the amount of the fine at a rate of 6,04 % and provided a
                                                                          bank guarantee for the amount of the fine. The applicant
Action brought on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH                             made representations to the Commission proposing different
INTERNATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the                          payment terms, which were rejected by a letter of the
                   European Communities                                   Commission dated 9 August 2001. The applicant also intro-
                                                                          duced proceedings against the Decision of 18 July 2001
                                                                          imposing the fine (1). Further proposals by the applicant on
                        (Case T-359/03)                                   payment facilities were rejected by the Commission by letters
                                                                          dated 18 August 2003, 11 September 2003 and 18 September
                         (2004/C 7/74)                                    2003.
                  (Language of the case: English)                         By the present action the applicant attacks all the Decisions
                                                                          concerning payment terms. It submits that it is an error of law,
                                                                          on the part of the Commission, to consider that no security
                                                                          other than a bank guarantee could be accepted by the
                                                                          Commission. It also submits that the Decision of 18 August
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 2003 infringes the principle of proportionality by failing to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                achieve a fair balance between the interest of the parties and
European Communities on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH                       in particular the applicant’s interest in granting a lien over its
INTERNATIONAL LTD., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, rep-                       unencumbered assets instead of the bank guarantee requested
resented by K.P.E. Lasok QC and Brian Hartnett, Barristers with           by the Commission . The applicant also invokes alleged
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     manifest errors of fact relating to the Commission’s finding
                                                                          that the applicant has not shown that it cannot comply with
                                                                          the Commission’s Decision and the Commission’s assessment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               of its financial position and the value of the lien it had offered.
                                                                          The applicant further submits that the Commission’s Decisions
—     annul the contested Commission Decisions dated 18 July              on the applicable interest rates are manifestly erroneous
      2001, 23 July 2001, 9 August 2001, 18 August 2003,                  and that the Commission has breached essential procedural
      11 September 2003 and 18 September 2003 requiring                   requirements in that it failed to afford the applicant an
      GTI to perform its obligations under the Decision of                opportunity to be heard before adopting a decision to enforce
      18 July 2001 or post a bank guarantee or face imminent              its first Decision of 18 July 2001.
      enforcement of the Decision of 18 July 2001 as of
      September 2003;
                                                                          (1) Case T-246/01 notified in OJ C 17, 19.01.2002, p. 16.
—     annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
      the extent that they apply interest at a rate of 6,04 %
      when current market interest rates are significantly lower;


title: Case T -137/09: Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10)
   (Case T -137/09)
   2009/C 129/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Santa Pola, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the contested decision with regard to the inadmissibility of the appeal, finding that that appeal is admissible, and order the Board of Appeal act in accordance therewith and examine the substance of the appeal;

               —

               In the alternative, find infringement by the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 and the other provisions applicable, ordering its retroactive application to the file to remedy the lack of opportunity of the applicant (Nike International Ltd) to correct the anomalies as assignee of the prior right and/or, at the very least, the correct notification of the Decision to the representative of the preceding proprietor (DL Sports & Marketing Ltda.).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘R10’ (application for registration No 4 813 713) for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Unregistered Spanish mark ‘R10’.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition on procedural grounds and, specifically, for infringement of the provisions of Article 58 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, (1) and of Rule 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. (2)

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect assessment of the conditions for admissibility of the appeal, breach of the duty to give reasons and breach of the right to a fair hearing.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.