title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by judgment of that court of 24 September 1997 in the case of H. Nijhuis v. Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (Case C-360/97)

text:
C 370/4             I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 12 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                      23 November 1993 concerning the minimum health
van Beroep by judgment of that court of 24 September                         and safety requirements for work on board fishing
1997 in the case of H. Nijhuis v. Landelijk Instituut                        vessels and/or by failing to inform the Commission
                     Sociale Verzekeringen                                   thereof; and
                        ( Case C-360/97 )
                                                                        b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
                           ( 97/C 370/07 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Centrale Raad                   Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court ) of 24 September              be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
1997, received at the Court Registry on 22 October 1997,                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Nijhuis v.                   Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen on the following              down in the directive. That period expired on
questions .                                                             23 November 1995 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
1 . When applying Article 46 ( 2 ) in conjunction with
     Article 45 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , and
     on the basis of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty, is            (') OJ L 307, 13 . 12 . 1993 , p . 1 .
     point 4 ( a ) of section J of Annex VI to Regulation
     ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in the version in force at the
     material time ) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
     case of a person who has worked exclusively in the
     Netherlands in the period from 15 October 1968 to
     1 April 1974 and who was insured throughout that                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
     period against invalidity under a special scheme for               e Penale di Firenze by order of that court of 8 October
     civil servants, that period should also be taken into              1997 in the criminal proceedings against Massimo and
     account in accordance with that section of the annex                                          Paolo Romanelli
     when determining invalidity benefits ?                                                        ( Case C-366/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/09 )
2 . If so, is the competent institution for the
     determination of benefits on the basis of those periods
     the institution referred to in point 2 ( b ) of section J of       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Annex 2 to Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 or is it the               European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e
     competent institution under national law in regard to              Penale di Firenze ( Civil and Criminal District Court,
     invalidity insurance for civil servants, notwithstanding           Florence ) of 8 October 1997, received at the Court
     the fact that the latter institution is not referred to in         Registry on 24 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
     the said annex ?                                                   the criminal proceedings against Massimo and Paolo
                                                                        Romanelli on the following question :
                                                                        whether the expression 'repayable funds' contained in
                                                                        Directive 89/646/EEC (') of 15 December 1989 refers only
                                                                        to financial instruments which possess the intrinsic
Action brought on 22 October 1997 by the Commission                     characteristic of repayability or whether that expression
         of the European Communities against Ireland                    refers also to those financial instruments which, although
                                                                        not possessing that intrinsic characteristic, are the subject
                         ( Case C-364/97 )                              of a contractual agreement to repay the amount paid ?
                            ( 97/C 370/08 )
                                                                         (») OJ L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 1 .
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 October 1997
 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission
 the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
 its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.                                                          Netherlands
                                                                                Case C-367/97 )
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 10 )
 a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,                  An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      comply     with     Council     Directive    93/103 (')   of       Communities on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of


title: Case C-211/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Taxation of inheritances and gifts — National legislation providing for a higher tax-free allowance where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor or beneficiary resided on the territory of the Member State — Subject-matter of the action for annulment — Restriction — Justification)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/15

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-211/13) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Taxation of inheritances and gifts - National legislation providing for a higher tax-free allowance where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor or beneficiary resided on the territory of the Member State - Subject-matter of the action for annulment - Restriction - Justification))
      (2014/C 395/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor, at the time of the gift, or the beneficiary, at the time of the taxable event, resided on the territory of another Member State, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted where at least one of the two parties concerned resided in Germany at the relevant time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;

                  2)

                  orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

                  3)

                  orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-359/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/81

         Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
   (Case T-359/15)
   (2015/C 294/97)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2015 in Case R 1021/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in part;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo of 25 January 1995 in the case of Fábrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against the Alfândega de Lisboa (Case C-164/95)

text:
 No C 189/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the                     Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 26 April 1995 , which
Supremo Tribunal Administrative of 25 January 1995 in                     was received at the Court Registry on 30 May 1995 , for a
the case of Fâbrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against                 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
                        the Alfândega de Lisboa                           Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L.
                            ( Case C-164/95 )                             Lay and The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture
                                                                          Fisheries and Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage, on
                               ( 95/C 189/23 )                            the following questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal                     1 . In determining a part transferee's entitlement to a
Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court) of                              reference quantity under Articles 1 (2 ) and 2 of Council
25 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993
on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                       allocating a special reference quantity to certain
Fâbrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against Alfândega                        producers of milk and milk products i 1 ) must a Member
de Lisboa ( Lisbon Customs Administration ) on the                             State having regard to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93
following questions :                                                          and the general principles of Community law on
                                                                               legitimate expectation, proportionality and the respect
 1 . Having regard to Commission Regulation ( EEC )                            for property apportion the reference quantity between
       No 316/91 of 7 February 1991 (*) should the said                        transferor and - part transferee by ascertaining what
       cheese ( 2 ) be classified under tariff heading 0406 20 90 ,            proportion of the holding was used for milk production
       as 'grated or powdered cheese, of all kinds', or under                  at the time the transferor entered into the non-marketing
       tariff heading 0406 90 11 as 'other cheese , for                        undertaking and then apportioning the reference
       processing'?                                                            quantity between the transferor and transferee in
                                                                               proportion to the percentage of land used for milk
2 . Is the said Regulation interpretative and therefore                        production transferred to the part transferee ?
       applicable retroactively to the import of the said
       cheese ?
                                                                          2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the negàtive, are
                                                                               Articles 1 (2 ) and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93
3 . In the event of either of the foregoing questions being                    invalid as contravening the general principles of
       answered in the negative, is account to be taken in this                Community law in particular those as to legitimate
       case of the Explanatory Notes to the combined                           expectation, proportionality and the respect for
       nomenclature of the European Communities in the                         property ?
       version referred to in Official Journal of the European
       Communities No C 263 of 18 October 1990, page 110,
       or of the previous Explanatory Notes ?                             3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, in
                                                                               determining a part transferee's entitlement to a reference
4 . In either case, under which of the two tariff headings                     quantity under Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 of Regulation ( EEC )
       mentioned above is the said cheese to be classified ?                   No 2055/93 is a Member State entitled to apportion the
                                                                               reference quantity between transferor and part
0 ) OJ No L 37, 9 . 2 . 1991 , p . 25 .
                                                                               transferee in proportion to that part of the transferor's
( 2 ) Cheese coming from a Community country, described by the                 holding transferred to the transferee ?
      exporter as grated cheese, which had been ground and subjected
      to an industrial process in which oxygen was replaced by an
                                                                          (!) OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
      injected nitrogen/002 solution, in order to enhance its
      preservation, and then packaged and compacted in plastic bags,
      each containing about 15 kgs , with a high moisture content,
      having the appearance of a compact mass or paste, which, after
      unpacking and exposure to the atmosphere breaks down into
      irregular granules.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens (Third Chamber), by judgment
                                                                         of that court of 22 May 1995 in the case of Société
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Sucrière Agricole de Maizy and Société Sucrière de
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                    Berneuil-sur-Aisne v. Directeur Régional des Impôts
26 April 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the Ministry
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L. Lay and                                        (Case C-172/95 )
The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and                                        ( 95/C 189/25 )
           Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage
                             Case C-165/95 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                              ( 95/C 189/24 )                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif (Administrative Court), Amiens (Third
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Chamber), of 22 May 1995 , which was received at the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Court Registry on 6 June 1 995 .


title: Case T-166/12: Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/22

         Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)
   (Case T-166/12)
   2012/C 194/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Juan Bolívar Cerezo (Granada, Spain) (represented by: I.M. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Renovalia Energy, SA (Villarobledo, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 January 2012 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 663/2011-1, resulting in the registration of Community trade mark No 8 631 814‘RENOVALIA’ for ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’ in Class 36;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RENOVALIA’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 25, 35, 36, 37 and 41 — application for Community trade mark No 8 631 814

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Renovalia Energy, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘RENOVA ENERGY’ and ‘RENOVAENERGY’ and trade name ‘RENOVALIA’ for services in Class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: There is a likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s priority Spanish mark No 2 715 975‘RENOVALIA’ and the opposing Spanish marks. An action for annulment is to be brought before the competent Spanish national court against the opposing Spanish marks, as a result of which those marks will no longer be able to be relied on to oppose the registration of the Community trade mark applied for


title: Case T-363/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/58

      Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)
      (Case T-363/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/107)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and J. Springer, lawyers)

         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 9 June 2010 in Case R 1560/2009-1;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘RESTORE’ for goods in Class 10

         Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

         Pleas in law:

                  Infringement of the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal referred in its decision to evidence which was not adduced by the applicant;

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for is not a term which directly describes the goods covered by the application;

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the required distinctive character.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-360/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2007 — FG Marine SA v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Decision ordering repayment of State aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine — Annulment of the decision by judgment of the Court)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2007 — FG Marine SA v Commission
   (Case T-360/04) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Decision ordering repayment of State aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine - Annulment of the decision by judgment of the Court)
   (2007/C 211/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: FG Marine SA (Roissy Charles de Gaulle, France) (represented by: M.-A. Michel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G.Rozet and C. Giolito, Agents)
   Re:
   Claim for compensation for loss allegedly caused by Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-463/07: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014  — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Premiums for bovines — Olive oil and fats — Dried fodder — Effectiveness of controls — System for penalties)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-463/07) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Premiums for bovines - Olive oil and fats - Dried fodder - Effectiveness of controls - System for penalties))
   2014/C 292/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, and by G. Aiello and F. Bucalo, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and D. Nardi, agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 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 2007 L 261, p. 28), in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-279/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/28

         Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission
   (Case C-279/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Alexandre Borde and Carbonium SAS (represented by: A.B.H. Herzberg, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court of 25 March 2015, whereby it:

                           a.

                           dismisses the applications as inadmissible; and

                           b.

                           orders the Applicants to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

               —

               Declare admissible the Appellants’ application for annulment;
               and

                           a.)

                           Give final judgment in the matter;
                           or, alternatively

                           b)

                           Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits;

               —

               Alternatively: refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the merits, and for judgment accordingly;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 184, first paragraph of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the dismissal of their action for annulment was unlawful because (i) the General Court provided an inaccurate and distorted statement of facts, thus disregarding the Appellants’ right to be heard; (ii) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly narrowed down challengeable acts to acts under Article 288 TFEU; (iii) the General Court erred in finding that the contested measures are not decisions under Article 288(4) TFEU; (iv) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly considered decisive whether or not the challenged act is ‘separable from the contractual framework’ and failed to take into account other relevant factors; (v) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly applied criteria developed for bipolar cases to a tripolar case; (vi) the General Court failed to consider the Appellants’ right to an effective judicial remedy as protected under the European Convention for Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case T-362/17: Action brought on 6 June 2017 — NCL v EUIPO (FEEL FREE)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/43

         Action brought on 6 June 2017 — NCL v EUIPO (FEEL FREE)
   (Case T-362/17)
   (2017/C 249/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FEEL FREE’ — Application for registration No 15 090 533

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 2094/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law relied on

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Case T-275/01, Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v European Parliament (Officials — Auxiliary servant — Conference interpreter — Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — End of engagement)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 June 2004
   in Case T-275/01, Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v European Parliament (1)

   (Officials - Auxiliary servant - Conference interpreter - Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - End of engagement)
   (2004/C 217/35)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-275/01: Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin (Germany), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. de Wachter), application, first, for annulment of the decision no longer to engage conference interpreters who have reached the age of 65 years and, second, for damages, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 June 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 30 November 2000, notified to the applicant on 10 February 2001, and the decision of the Parliament of 19 July 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case C-500/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Caterpillar Financial Services Poland sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Caterpillar Financial Services Poland sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
   (Case C-500/16)
   (2017/C 022/04)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Caterpillar Financial Services Poland sp. z o.o., Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

      Question referred

   Having regard to the interpretation of the Court of Justice in its judgment of 17 January 2013 in Case C-224/11, BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie, do the principles of effectiveness, sincere cooperation and equivalence expressed in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, or any other principle laid down in EU law, preclude, in the field of value added tax, national legislation or a national practice which precludes the refund of overpayment resulting from the collection of VAT contrary to EU law where, as a result of the action of the national authorities, an individual was unable to exercise his or her rights until after the limitation period for the tax liability had expired?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-299/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Friedrich Kremzow, Wilfried Weh, intervening v. Republik Österreich (Article 164 of the EC Treaty - European Convention on Human Rights - Deprivation of liberty - Right to a fair trial - Effects of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights)

text:
No C 212/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7 . 97
No L 310, 14 . 12 . 1993 , p. 44 ) — the Court ( Sixth                  ruling, give the interpretative guidance necessary for the
Chamber), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the                   national      court   to     determine    whether that  national
Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                        legislation is in conformity with the fundamental rights
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch                    whose observance the Court ensures, such as those
( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,                     deriving in particular from the Convention for the
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for                Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
which it :
                                                                        ( ! ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
                                                                        in Case C-300/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland (')
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations —
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                              Article 7 (e) of Directive 85/374/EEC — Incorrect
                           of 29 May 1997                                implementation — Defence precluding liability for
                                                                         defective products — State of scientific and technical
 in Case C-299/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                              knowledge)
 the Oberster Gerichtshof): Friedrich Kremzow, Wilfried
           Weh, intervening v. Republik Osterreich ( ' )                                              ( 97/C 212/04 )
  (Article 164 of the EC Treaty — European Convention on
 Human Rights — Deprivation of liberty — Right to a fair                                 (Language of the case: English)
  trial — Effects of a judgment of the European Court of
                            Human Rights)
                                                                         In Case C-300/95 : Commission of the European
                             ( 97/C 212/03 )
                                                                          Communities ( Agent: Peter Oliver, assisted by Mark
                                                                         Mildred, Solicitor ) against United Kingdom of Great
                 (Language of the case: German)                           Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins,
                                                                          assisted by K. Paul E. Lasok, QC ) — application for a
                                                                          declaration that, by failing to take all the measures
                                                                          necessary to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of
     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws,
            published in the European Court Reports)                      regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                          States concerning liability for defective products ( OJ No
  In Case C-299/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to                   L 210, 7. 8 . 1985 , p. 29 ), in particular Article 7 ( e )
  Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichts                thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
  hof ( Supreme Court) ( Austria ), for a preliminary ruling in           obligations under that Directive and under the EC Treaty
  the proceedings pending before that court between                       — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of: J. C.
  Friedrich Kremzow, Wilfried Weh, intervening and                        Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
                                                                           Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M.
   Republik Osterreich — on the interpretation of Article 164
   of the EC Treaty and a number of provisions of the                     Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                       General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the
   Fundamental Freedoms — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
                                                                           which it :
   composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
   President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward,
   J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,
   Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator,
                                                                            1 . dismissed the application;
   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997,
   in which it has ruled :
                                                                           2 . ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
    Where national legislation is concerned with a situation                (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
   which, as in the case at issue in the main proceedings,
   does not fall within the field of application of Community
    law, the Court cannot, in a reference for a preliminary


title: Case C-425/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner
   (Case C-425/16)
   (2016/C 402/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hansruedi Raimund

      Defendant: Michaela Aigner

      Questions referred

               1.

               May an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (Article 96(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) be dismissed on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith (Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) if, despite the defendant having brought a well-founded counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark (Article 99(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424), the court has not yet ruled on that counterclaim?

               2.

               If the answer is in the negative: May the court dismiss an action for infringement on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith, if the court at least simultaneously upholds the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, or must the court delay the decision on the action for infringement in any event until the decision on the counterclaim is res judicata?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-206/95)

text:
No C 351 / 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 12 . 95
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                            legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and
allocation     scheme     set  out   in  the  Universal     Postal               sound administration .
Convention. The behaviour in question of the post offices
named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 12 .
or restraining 'remail' competition , a practice whereby a             ( 2 ) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 17.
mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts            (<) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 22 .
the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
post office located in another country .
On 23 November 1994 , the applicant called on the
Commission to act, under Article 175 , by adopting a                   Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse against
definitive position on the complaint as far as Article 85 is           the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
concerned . On 15 February 1995 , not having received any                                 the European Communities
decision from the Commission, the applicant lodged at the
                                                                                ( Case T-206/95 )
Court of First Instance an application under Article 175
against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ) ( ! ).                                  ( 95/C 351 /35 )
On 17 February 1995 , the Commission adopted Decision
SG(95 ) D/ 1790, rejecting as regards Article 85 of the EC                              (Language of the case: German)
Treaty, the complaint made by the applicant. The applicant
challenged that Decision by its application of 18 April 1995           An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Case T-l 10/95 ) ( 2 ). On 6 April 1995 , the Commission             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
adopted Decision SG(95)D/4438 , rejecting the second part              before the Court of First Instance of the European
of the aforementioned complaint. The applicant sought the               Communities on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse, residing
annulment of that Decision by its application of 20 June               at Schmallenberg ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
 1995 ( Case T-133/95 ) ( 3 ). On 14 August 1995 , the                 represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Commission further adopted the purported Decision, which                Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr Winfried
is contested here, rejecting the complaint with respect to the          Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
application of Article 25 of the Universal Postal Convention            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
solely to ABC remail by the German, UK and French post                  Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
offices .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In this respect the applicant submits the following pleas in
 law:                                                                   ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                              applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
— as a principal plea, that the Commission's purported                        period from 2 April 1984 to 31 March 1993 ,
    Decision of 14 August 1995 should be declared                             amounting to DM 14 219,09, together with 8%
    non-existent because it constitutes a manifestly illegal                  interest from 19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
    act ,                                                                     proceedings;
— in the alternative, that the Decision should be annulled,             ( 2 ) stay the proceedings .
    on the grounds of:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
          the Commission fails to state its reasons ( i ) as to the     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
          allegation that the Post Offices' use of Article 25 of        in Case T-20/94 .
          the UPU Convention infringes Article 85 of the EC
          Treaty, and ( ii ) as to the fact that it adopted two
          different positions in respect of the same factual and
          legal situation,
     — infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty               Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los
          through the Commission 's failure to condemn the               Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European
          Post Offices' efforts to restrain the development of                                       Communities
          ABC remail through the use of the authority and                                        ( Case T-207/95 )
          purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU                                              ( 95/C 351 /36 )
          Convention,
     — misuse of powers in that the Commission's main                                    (Language of the case: French)
          purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to
          achieve political objectives,                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     — breach of certain general principles of law in that, in           Instance of the European Communities on 2 November
          adopting the decision, the Commission infringed the             1 995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, residing in Brussels
          principles of legal certainty, the protection of               ( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege


title: Case T-52/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Greece v Commission (State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-52/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector))
   2014/C 292/40
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, then by I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Triantafyllou and S. Thomas, then by D. Triantafyllou and R. Sauer, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 (OJ 2012 L 78, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the action for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case T-440/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/66

         Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
   (Case T-440/14)
   2014/C 315/111
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Premo, SL (Málaga, Spain) (represented by: E. Cornu, F. de Visscher and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prema Semiconductor GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2014 in Case R 1719/2011-5;

               —

               Subsidiarily, annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition regarding ‘induction coils’, ‘inductive resisters’, ‘electric transformers’ and ‘antiparasitic transformers and filters’;

               —

               Order the OHIM, and if appropriate the intervening party, to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PREMO’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 5 5 20  788

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prema Semiconductor GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘PREMA’ for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was partially dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22, 6o of Regulation 2868/95 and the rights of defence of the Applicant;

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

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


title: Case C-264/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Merger of companies — Rectification of the land register — Charging of a fee — Whether a transfer duty — Conditions for charging the fee)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-264/04) (1)

   (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Merger of companies - Rectification of the land register - Charging of a fee - Whether a 'transfer duty' - Conditions for charging the fee)
   (2006/C 190/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Breisach
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Badischer Winzerkeller eG

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Breisach -am- Rhein — Interpretation of Articles 4, 10 (c) and 12(2)of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p.412), as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13), Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 15), Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 (0J 1974 L 303, p. 9), and Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (0J 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Fee due for rectification of the land register following a change of owner of an agricultural cooperative company as a result of merger and calculated by reference to the value of the land
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               A fee charged for rectification of the land register, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls in principle within the prohibition under Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985.

               2.

               A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may, in derogation from Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, be regarded as a transfer duty authorised by Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, provided it is not higher than those applicable to similar operations in the taxing Member State.
               It is for the national court to verify whether that tax complies with the provisions of Article 12(2) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.


title: Case T-442/04: Action brought on 5 November 2004 by Andrea Walderdorff against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/45

         Action brought on 5 November 2004 by Andrea Walderdorff against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-442/04)
   (2005/C 6/89)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 November 2004, by Andrea Walderdorff, residing in Brussels, represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 19 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 26 February 2004, by which she challenged the decision refusing to promote her from Grade A5 to Grade A4, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in November 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade A5 to Grade A4, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in Case T-432/04.


title: Case T-345/12: Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/29

         Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-345/12)
   2012/C 295/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB (Nacka, Sweden) and Eka Chemicals AB (Bohus, Sweden) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision C(2012) 3533 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted in relation to Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perboratem;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three main pleas in law and two alternative pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the duty to state reasons and the applicants’ right to good administration pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the publication of the extended non-confidential version of the Hydrogen Peroxide Decision violates the Commission’s obligation of confidentiality pursuant Article 339 TFEU as further implemented by Regulation 1/2003 (1), Regulation 773/2004 (2) and the Commission’s 2002 and 2006 Leniency Notices (3).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the publication of an extended non-confidential version of the Hydrogen Peroxide Decision that contains information originating from the applicants’ leniency application violates the principles of legal certainty, the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the right to good administration pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, applicable to the extent that the Commission decision can be considered to imply a decision to grant access to certain information on the basis of the Transparency Regulation (4), alleging that the Commission has violated its duty to state reasons and the right to good administration pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, applicable to the extent that the Commission decision can be considered to imply a decision to grant access to certain information on the basis of the Transparency Regulation, alleging that the publication of the extended non-confidential version of the Hydrogen Peroxide Decision violates the said regulation.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, p. 18).

      (3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3) and Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17).

      (4)  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 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-443/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy) lodged on 13 November 2009 — C.C.I.A.A di Cosenza v Grillo Star srl Fallimento

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy) lodged on 13 November 2009 — C.C.I.A.A di Cosenza v Grillo Star srl Fallimento
   (Case C-443/09)
   2010/C 51/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Camera di commercio, industria, artigianato e agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza

      Defendant: Grillo Star srl Fallimento

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the criteria for determining the annual duty referred to in Article 18[1](b) of Italian Law No 580 of 29 December 1993, as provided for in Article 18(3), (4), (5) and (6) thereof, inconsistent with Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, in so far as the duty cannot be covered by the exceptions provided for in Article 6[1](e) of that directive?

               2.

               In particular:

                           —

                           Does the annual duty, which is to be determined by reference to ‘the budgetary resources needed in order for the chambers of commerce system to be able to carry out the services which it is under a duty to provide throughout the national territory’, constitute a duty paid by way of fees or dues?

                           —

                           Does the provision for a ‘balancing fund’, which is intended to harmonise throughout the national territory the performance of all the ‘administrative functions’ entrusted by law to the chambers of commerce, preclude the possibility that the annual duty is a duty paid by way of fees or dues?

                           —

                           Is the power conferred on the individual chambers of commerce to increase the amount of the annual duty by up to 20 % for the purposes of cofinancing initiatives aimed at increasing production and improving the economic conditions of the territorial unit under their responsibility consistent with that annual duty being a duty paid by way of fees or dues?

                           —

                           Does the fact that no methods have been specified for determining the total budgetary requirements for the maintaining and the updating by the chambers of commerce of registrations and notes in the register of companies mean that the annual duty cannot be a duty paid by way of fees or dues?

                           —

                           Is the fact that the annual duty is determined on a flat-rate basis, with no provision for checking at ‘regular intervals’ that it appropriately reflects the average cost of the service, consistent with the annual duty being a duty paid by way of fees or dues?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.


title: Case C-614/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 December 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov
   (Case C-614/14)
   (2015/C 096/08)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Sentenced person: Atanas Ognyanov

      Other party to the proceedings: Sofyiska gradska prokuratura

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it constitute an infringement of EU law (second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or other applicable provisions) if the court which submitted the request for a preliminary ruling allows the proceedings to continue before it after delivery of the preliminary ruling and delivers a decision on the merits of the case without disqualifying itself, a ground for such disqualification being that the court had expressed a preliminary view on the merits of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling (in that it considered certain facts to have been established and a certain legal provision to be applicable to those facts)?
               The question is referred on the assumption that all procedural provisions protecting the parties’ rights to adduce evidence and to make submissions were complied with in the determination of the facts and applicable law for the purposes of submitting the request for a preliminary ruling.

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is that it is lawful for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, does it constitute an infringement of EU law if:

                           A)

                           the court reproduces in its final decision, without amendment, all the findings set out in its request for a preliminary ruling and declines to take new evidence or to hear the parties in relation to those factual and legal outcomes (with the court, in practice, taking new evidence and hearing the parties only in respect of matters not regarded as having been established in the request for a preliminary ruling)?

                           B)

                           the court takes new evidence and hears the parties on all relevant issues, including those on which it has already stated its view in the request for a preliminary ruling, and sets out its view in its final decision on the basis of all the evidence adduced and after examining all the parties’ arguments, irrespective of whether the evidence was adduced before submission of the request for a preliminary ruling or after delivery of the preliminary ruling, and of whether the arguments were put forward beforehand or afterwards?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is that it is compatible with EU law for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, is it compatible with EU law if the court decides not to allow the main proceedings to continue before it and to disqualify itself from the case on the ground of bias, it being contrary to national law (which offers a higher level of protection in respect of the interests of the parties and of justice) for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, and where such disqualification is based on the fact that:

                           А)

                           before delivering its final decision, the court had expressed a preliminary view on the proceedings in the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, which is permissible under EU law but not under national law;

                           B)

                           the court’s final view would be set out in two legal acts instead of one (on the assumption that the request for a preliminary ruling constitutes a final, rather than a preliminary, view), which is permissible under EU law but not under national law?


title: Case T-677/13: Action brought on 19 December 2013 — Axa Versicherung v Commission

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/22

      Action brought on 19 December 2013 — Axa Versicherung v Commission
      (Case T-677/13)
      (2014/C 71/42)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested refusal;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the contested refusal in part;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant challenges the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2013 concerning its second application for access to the Commission’s file in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass.
      In support of the action, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law: infringement of the duty to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

                              —

                              The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission failed to comply with its duty under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents. Instead, it wrongfully categorised the documents concerned on the basis of formal criteria.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the refusal of access to specific documents in the file.

                              —

                              By this plea, the applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully gave too broad an interpretation to the scope of the exceptions set out in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant takes the view that commercial interests would not be undermined, within the terms of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and that the Commission is not entitled to invoke the protection of investigations under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

                              —

                              In addition, it submits that the decision-making process would not be seriously undermined (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001).

                              —

                              Furthermore, the Commission is wrong to deny that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the documents requested.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the total refusal to grant access to specific documents

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to grant even partial access to the relevant documents. The Commission failed to examine whether access could be granted to some of the documents, thereby infringing the requirements of Regulation No 1049/2001.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2), the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) and Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the refusal to grant access to the complete version of the contents page of the Commission’s file

                              —

                              In this context, the applicant claims that the Commission gave too broad an interpretation to the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 also in relation to the applicant’s request for access to the unredacted version of the contents page. The applicant takes the view that, in this regard too, commercial interests, under the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and the protection of investigations, under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, could not be undermined.

                              —

                              In addition, it submits that the privacy of the individual under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 would also not be undermined.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons

                              —

                              The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission included merely general statements for refusal of the application for access to the file and failed to ensure the treatment of individual documents or of correctly established categories of documents, as it was legally required to do.

         (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-147/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Robe v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/25

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Robe v Council
   (Case T-147/11)
   2011/C 130/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gogo Joachim Robe (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Gogo Joachim ROBE, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Gogo Joachim ROBE be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Case C-537/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński
   (Case C-537/15)
   (2016/C 191/05)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro Bank SA

      Defendant: Marek Łopaciński

      Questions referred

   By order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 it was decided that there was no need to proceed to judgment in the case.


title: Case C-196/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.10.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 299/5
     In its examination of the pricing agreements in the light of        Pleas in law and main arguments
     Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, the Court also failed
     entirely to take account of the special features of ‘normal
     competition’ within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
     ECSC Treaty. In this it accepted that DG III could modify           Case C-194/99 P, with the exception of those set out in the
     ‘normal competition’ and, in particular, that it had con-           first indent in the notice relating to that case.
     ceded to undertakings, within the context of cooperation
     with DG III, scope for discussions on price forecasts. Had
                                                                         (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
     it acted correctly, the Court ought to have examined
     whether the practices in question came within that scope,
     since, if that were so, there would be no anti-competitive
     conduct within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC
     Treaty.
— Error in law in the quantification of the fine.
— Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on
     Human Rights by reason of the unduly lengthy duration               Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica Aristrain
     of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.              Madrid S.L. against the judgment delivered on 11 March
                                                                         1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
                                                                         in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-196/99 P) (*)
Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch Stahl                                                 (1999/C 299/06)
AG against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Commission of the                       European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica
                     European Communities                                Aristrain Madrid S.L., represented by Antonio Creus, of the
                                                                         Barcelona Bar, and Natalia Lacalle Mangas, of the Madrid Bar,
                        (Case C-195/99 P) (*)                            with an address for service at the Cuatrecasas Law Chambers,
                                                                         78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels, against the judg-
                          (1999/C 299/05)                                ment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the            Extended Composition) in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch                      Madrid S.L. v Commission of the European Communities.
Stahl AG, represented by Frank Montag, of Freshfields Dering-
er, Bastion Tower, 5 Place du Champs de Mars, B-1050                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue, against the judgment
delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance                I.   Annul the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                         Court of First Instance in Case T-156/94 (1) on the ground
Composition) in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v                         of all or some of the defects indicated, and draw from
Commission of the European Communities.                                       the annulment of that judgment all legal consequences,
                                                                              whether the Court rules expressly on the substance or
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   refers the case back to the Court of First Instance, and, in
                                                                              particular:
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                      1. Annul the contested judgment in so far as it finds that
     (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                               the decision does not infringe Community law by
     T-147/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine imposed                   reason of misapplication and misinterpretation of
     on the appellant at EUR 9 000 (paragraph (1) of the                          Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and, accordingly, annul
     operative part), dismisses the appellant’s action (paragraph                 the decision on that ground;
     (2) of the operative part), and orders the appellant to bear
     its own costs and to pay half of the Commission’s costs                  2. Rule on the substance, in so far as it is ready for
     (paragraph (3) of the operative part);                                       judgment, or, if not, refer the case back to the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in order that it may rule on the grounds
2. Annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision                               set out below, and accordingly annul the decision in
     C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceed-                    so far as it relates to these grounds or, in the alternative,
     ing pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning                     reduce the fine imposed on the appellant:
     agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
     pean producers of beams;
                                                                                — joint responsibility,
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
     at first instance and those of the present appeal.                           — failure to state reasons,
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/6                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
         — inconsistency,                                               — Infringement of Community law in so far as the judgment
                                                                             of the Court of First Instance results in a series of
         — infringement of the principle of equality and                     inconsistencies in regard to its analysis and assessment of
             proportionality in expressing the fines in Ecus,                a number of arguments.
                                                                             (a) First, in relation to the argument concerning joint
         — failure to order the Commission to pay to the                         liability, inasmuch as the respondent imposed a fine
             applicant at first instance the full expenses and                   only on Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, attributing to it
             interest resulting from the lodging of a surety or                  the conduct of its sister company;
             from payment of the fine in full or in part; the
             Court should rule that the interest on the fine does            (b) Second, in relation to the aggravating circumstance
             not begin to accrue until the judgment of the Court                 resulting from awareness that the conduct criticised
             of First Instance becomes enforceable, and should                   was unlawful; and, finally
             accordingly order the Commission to pay the
                                                                             (c) In relation to the date indicated in the operative part
             expenses and interest accrued on the surety or
                                                                                of the Commission decision from which the alleged
             payment of the fine,
                                                                                infringements attributed to Siderúrgica Aristrain Mad-
                                                                                rid began to run.
         — idem in relation to the eighth and ninth pleas in
             the present appeal.                                        — Infringement of Community law through misapplication
                                                                             and misinterpretation of the principle of equality and
    3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, in so             proportionality in so far as the judgment of the Court of
         far as is not ready for judgment, in order that the latter          First Instance failed correctly to take account of the
         may rule on:                                                        depreciations incurred by the Spanish peseta, which result-
                                                                             ed in an increase in the fine payable by Siderúrgica
                                                                             Aristrain Madrid compared with those payable by other
         — the plea relating to misuse of power.                             undertakings whose currencies had not suffered devalu-
                                                                             ation or had been revalued.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs and also rule that
    the respondent must pay the costs in the proceedings at             — Infringement of Community law and of fundamental rights
    first instance, in the event that the Court of Justice upholds           on the ground of inconsistency in the reasoning of the
    in whole or in part the pleas in law set out in the present              judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it failed
    appeal.                                                                  to order the Commission to pay the expenses and interest
                                                                             resulting from the lodging of a surety or payment of the
                                                                             fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Infringement of Community law by reason of a breach of
                                                                             Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                             Instance and breach of procedural guarantees in so far as
— Infringement of Community law through misapplication                       the deliberations of the Court were concluded by only
    and misinterpretation of Article 65 of the Treaty estab-                 three of the five judges who constituted the Chamber at
    lishing the European Coal and Steel Community (the ECSC                  the time of the hearing.
    Treaty) in the assessment of the infringements allegedly
    committed within the context of that Treaty and the                 — Infringement of Community law in so far as the appellant
    ECSC market, inasmuch as the grounds of the impugned                     was refused the right to a fair decision within a reasonable
    judgment are contradictory in relation to this point.                    period of time, contrary to Article 6 of the European
                                                                             Convention on Human Rights.
— Infringement of Community law inasmuch as the Court of
    First Instance erred in law in its judgment in its application      (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
    of the notion of misuse of power due to the fact that it            (1) OJ 1999 C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 16.
    failed properly to examine the appellant’s argument in that
    regard or the factors relied on.
— Infringement of Community law through misapplication
    and misinterpretation of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty,             Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional
    inasmuch as the statement of reasons in the decision                Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) against the judgment delivered
    relating to the fine is defective.                                  on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended
— Infringement of Community law in so far as the judgment               Composition) in Case T-157/94 Empresa Nacional Sid-
    of the Court of First Instance is not sufficiently reasoned in      erúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European
    regard to:                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-198/99 P) (*)
    (a) a fundamental point in the applicants’ argument
         concerning the absence of a quorum for the adoption                                      (1999/C 299/07)
         of the contested decision;
                                                                        An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
    (b) its refusal to compare the level of the fines imposed on        European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional
         other cartels under the EEC Treaty, without offering           Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa), represented by Santiago Martı́nez
         any valid grounds for that refusal.                            Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamente Köster, of the Madrid Bar,


title: Case C-91/09: Order of the Court of 26 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Trade marks — Internet — Keyword advertising — Display, on the basis of a keyword identical to a trade mark, of an advert of a competitor to the proprietor of that trade mark — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a))

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/18

         Order of the Court of 26 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-91/09) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Trade marks - Internet - Keyword advertising - Display, on the basis of a keyword identical to a trade mark, of an advert of a competitor to the proprietor of that trade mark - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(a))
   2010/C 234/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eis.de GmbH

      Defendant: BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof Karlsruhe — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Inscription of a sign similar to a trade mark with a service provider operating an Internet search engine in order automatically to have displayed on the screen, after entry of that sign as a search term, adverts for goods or services identical to those for which the trade mark in question was registered (‘keyword advertising’) — Absence of authorisation from the proprietor of the trade mark — Classification of that use of the mark as ‘use’ within the meaning of the provision cited above

      Operative part of the order

   Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-269/12 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2012 by Guillermo Cañas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/8

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2012 by Guillermo Cañas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission
   (Case C-269/12 P)
   2012/C 235/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, World Anti-Doping Agency, ATP Tour Inc.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the order delivered on 26 March 2012 by the General Court in Case T-508/09;

               —

               Order the General Court to examine the action for annulment lodged on 22 December 2009 by Guillermo Cañas;

               —

               Dismiss any other head of claim submitted by any opposing party;

               —

               Order all the opposing parties to pay Guillermo Cañas’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant sets out three grounds of appeal against the General Court’s decision.
   First, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to have regard to the right of an undertaking which is temporarily excluded from a market to bring an action against the shelving of a complaint in respect of an infringement of competition law by making that undertaking’s locus standi conditional on the immediate advantage which that action for annulment would secure for it. The annulment of the shelving of a complaint never in the appellant’s view tends in itself to secure an immediate advantage for the applicant as it can lead only to the examination of the complaint, without any guarantee of the outcome.
   Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in holding that his locus standi was lost because he is still adversely affected by the anti-competitive obstacles complained of. He takes the view that, despite the fact that he has ended his career in sports, he still has locus standi, namely an interest in securing the annulment of the Commission’s decision to shelve his complaint without taking any further action on it and in a declaration on the Commission’s part that the obstacles complained of are unlawful, these being the prior stages necessary for making a claim for damages against the World Anti-Doping Agency, ATP Tour Inc. and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport.
   Thirdly, the appellant submits that the General Court held that the annulment of the shelving of his complaint would have no effect on his right to make a claim for damages against the undertakings that he has complained about since the administrative procedure before the Commission cannot preclude an action before the competent civil courts. However, that argument is based on an error of fact inasmuch as the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport of 23 May 2007 found that the obstacles complained of were not contrary to European Union competition law, which is the reason why, in the absence of a favourable decision on the part of the Commission, it was impossible for the appellant to make a claim for damages.


title: Case T-1/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/21

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-1/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 340/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and R. Cana, and subsequently by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer, Y. de Vries and M. de Ree, acting as Agents; and European Commission (represented initially by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, and subsequently by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of ECHA of 7 December 2009 identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) 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 (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1) in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

               3.

               SNF shall bear the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

               4.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.