title: Case T-212/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Bowland Dairy Products v Commission (Action for damages — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Rapid alert system — Supplementary notification — Competence of the national authorities — Commission’s opinion not binding — Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Bowland Dairy Products v Commission
   (Case T-212/06) (1)

   (Action for damages - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Rapid alert system - Supplementary notification - Competence of the national authorities - Commission’s opinion not binding - Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 312/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bowland Dairy Products Ltd (Barrowford, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Milligan, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC and A. Robertson, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, J.-P. Keppenne and L. Parpala, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the alleged refusal by the Commission to circulate, under the rapid alert system provided for in Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), a supplementary notification declaring that the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency was content for the curd cheese produced by the applicant to be marketed and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of that refusal.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Bowland Dairy Products Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case T-304/12: Action brought on 9 July 2012 — Message Management v OHIM — Absacker (ABSACKER of Germany)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/17

         Action brought on 9 July 2012 — Message Management v OHIM — Absacker (ABSACKER of Germany)
   (Case T-304/12)
   2012/C 273/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Message Management GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Absacker GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in Case R 1028/2011-1 and dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition No B 1663700, which was brought against Community trade mark application No 8753691 filed by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in Case R 1028/2011-1 and dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition No B 1663700, which was brought against Community trade mark application No 8753691 filed by the applicant, in so far as concerns Classes 32 and 33;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in Case R 1028/2011-1 and dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition No B 1663700, which was brought against Community trade mark application No 8753691 filed by the applicant, in so far as concerns Class 33.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark in black and white, which represents an eagle and contains the word elements ‘ABSACKER of Germany’, for goods in Classes 25, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 753 691

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative marks in black, orange and white containing the word elements ‘ABSACKER’ for goods in Classes 25, 33 and 43

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the mark applied for was rejected

      Pleas in law: Erroneous assumption that the signs are similar and that there is a likelihood of confusion


title: Case T-15/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/15

         Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission
   (Case T-15/12)
   2012/C 109/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Provincie Groningen (Groningen, Netherlands); Provincie Friesland (Leeuwarden, Netherlands); Provincie Drenthe (Assen, Netherlands); Provincie Overijssel (Zwolle, Netherlands); Provincie Gelderland (Arnhem, Netherlands); Provincie Flevoland (Lelystad, Netherlands); Provincie Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands); Provincie Noord-Holland (Haarlem, Netherlands); Provincie Zuid-Holland (The Hague, Netherlands); Provincie Zeeland (Middelburg, Netherlands); Provincie Noord-Brabant (’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands); and Provincie Limburg (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as nature conservation societies are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme, or, in the further alternative, annul that decision in so far as land management organisations are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU and infringement of European Union law.

                           —

                           Nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No 26 on services of general interest. European Union competition law is therefore inapplicable;

                           —

                           Nature managers, nature conservation societies or land management organisations are wrongly categorised as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

                           —

                           The subsidy scheme does not, in view of the conditions associated with that scheme, lead to an economic advantage for the beneficiaries for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;

                           —

                           The Commission erred in its application of the fourth condition referred to in the judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I 7747;

                           —

                           The subsidy scheme does not have the effect of affecting trade between Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case C-85/09 P: Order of the Court of 29 October 2009 — Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Claim for compensation for damage sustained on account of the various omissions by the Commission in the application of Directive 93/42/EEC — No causal connection between the omission alleged and the damage suffered by the applicant in the marketing of defective digital thermometers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/15

         Order of the Court of 29 October 2009 — Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda v European Commission
   (Case C-85/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Claim for compensation for damage sustained on account of the various omissions by the Commission in the application of Directive 93/42/EEC - No causal connection between the omission alleged and the damage suffered by the applicant in the marketing of defective digital thermometers - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 51/24
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda (represented by: C. Mourato, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2008 in Case T-137/07 Portela v Commission, in which the Court rejected as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, for the remainder, manifestly unfounded an application claiming, primarily, that the Court of First Instance should impose on the Commission the obligation to act in accordance with Article 14b of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), by ordering the certification company TÜV Rheinland Product Safety GmbH, through the Federal Republic of Germany, to activate, in favour of the appellant, the mandatory civil liability insurance provided for in point 6 of Annex XI to Directive 93/42, concluded by that company or, if the alleged damage could not be remedied by the main claim, a claim for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of the various omissions on the part of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-69/94: French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Milk - Additional levy scheme - Detailed rules - Decision 93/673/EC - Powers of the Commission)

text:
 12 . 7. 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 212/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                          costs,
                       of 13 May 1997
in Case C-233/94: Federal Republic of Germany v.
European Parliament and Council of the European                       3 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          to bear its own costs.
Union supported by Commission of the European
                       Communities f 1 )
                                                                      O OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
(Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes — Legal basis —
Obligation to state reasons — Principle of subsidiarity —
Proportionality — Consumer protection — Supervision by
                   the home Member State)
                         ( 97/C 212/01
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: German)                                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       in Case C-69/94: French Republic v. Commission of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                                     European Communities (')
                                                                      (Milk — Additional levy scheme — Detailed rules —
In Case C-233/94 : Federal Republic of Germany (Agents :                  Decision 93/673/EC — Powers of the Commission)
Bernd Kloke and Hans-Jörg Niemeyer ) v. European                                                ( 97/C 212/02 )
Parliament (Agent: Johann Schoo ) and Council of the
European Union (Agents: Jill Aussant, Klaus Borchers and
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Jan-Peter Hix) supported by Commission of the European
Union ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Ulrich Wölker )
— application for annulment of Directive 94/1 9/EC of the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994                          published in the European Court Reports)
on deposit-guarantee schemes ( OJ No L 135 , 31 . 5 . 1994,
p. 5 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L.           In Case C-69/94 : French Republic ( Agents: Edwige
Murray and L. Sevón, (Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.                Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi ) v. Commission of the
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                     European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur),           application for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;                  673/EC of 10 December 1993 fixing the flat-rate
Advocate-General : P. Leger; H. A. Rühl, Principal                   reduction to advances on the entry of agricultural
Administrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             expenditure in the accounts in the event of non
13 May 1997, in which it:                                            compliance with the provisions relating to the forwarding
                                                                     of the annual questionnaire on the application of the
                                                                     arrangements for additional levies in the milk sector
1 . dimisses the application;                                        introduced by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 ( OJ
 ---pagebreak--- 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: Judgment of the Court of 23 May 2000 in Case C-209/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/Miljøsektion (FFAD) v Københavns Kommune (Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) in conjunction with Articles 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC) and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Directive 75/442/EEC — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Special or exclusive right to collect building waste — Environmental protection)

text:
26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 247/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on
                                                                             the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into
                                                                             and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), in
                          of 23 May 2000                                     particular Articles 2(j) and 13 thereof — the Court, composed
                                                                             of: G.C. Rodrı́guez, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                             D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chamber,
                                                                             P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
in Case C-209/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    teur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
the Østre Landsret): Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/                         D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
     Miljøsektion (FFAD) v Københavns Kommune (1)                            given a judgment on 23 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
(Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) in conjunc-
tion with Articles 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
ment, Article 29 EC) and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
EC) — Directive 75/442/EEC — Regulation (EEC)                                1.    Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29
No 259/93 — Special or exclusive right to collect building                         EC) prohibits a system for the collection and receipt of non-
              waste — Environmental protection)                                    hazardous building waste destined for recovery, under which a
                                                                                limited number of undertakings are authorised to process the
                                                                                waste produced in a commune, if that system constitutes, in law
                                                                                or in fact, an obstacle to exports in that it does not
                          (2000/C 247/01)
                                                                                allow producers of waste to export it, in particular through
                                                                                intermediaries. Such an obstacle cannot be justified on the basis
                                                                                of Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 30 EC) or in the interests of environmental protection,
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                  in particular by application of the principle referred to in
                                                                                Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 174(2) EC) that damage should as a priority be rectified
                                                                                at source, in the absence of any indication of danger to the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             health or life of humans, animals or plants or danger to the
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  environment.
In Case C-209/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Østre Landsret
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              2.    Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC), read in
court between Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/Miljøsektion                          conjunction with Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
(FFAD), trading as Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v Københavns                         EC), does not preclude the establishment of a local system, such
Kommune — on the interpretation of Article 90 of the EC                            as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to
Treaty (now Article 86 EC), read in conjunction with Article 34                    resolve an environmental problem resulting from the absence of
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC) and                         processing capacity for non-hazardous building waste destined
Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), Articles 36                       for recovery, provides that a limited number of specially selected
and 130r(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                                undertakings may process such waste produced in the area
Articles 30 EC and 174(2) EC), Articles 7(3) and (10) of                           concerned, thus making it possible to ensure a sufficiently large
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste                              flow of such waste to those undertakings, and precludes other
OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive                             undertakings from processing that waste, even though they are
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and                             qualified to do so.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.8.2000
3.    Neither Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1995 on               of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings held by the
      waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  State and public bodies in joint stock companies (GURI
      18 March 1991, nor Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93                 No 177 of 30 July 1994), and the decrees concerning the
      of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and monitoring of               ‘special powers’ laid down in the case of the privatisation of
      shipments of waste within, into and out of the European               ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA, the Italian Republic has failed
      Community requires that Member States conclude contracts              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC
      with all the undertakings authorised, within the meaning of           Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and
      Article 10 of that directive, to receive and recover environmen-      Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — the Court
      tally non-hazardous building waste.                                   composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O Ed-
                                                                            ward, L Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
4.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it allows a              G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;
      Member State to take measures in relation to the shipment of          J. Misco, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      waste, including measures which prohibit the shipment of non-         Administrator, for the Registrar has given a judgment on
      hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if the shipment       23 May 2000 in which it:
      is not in accordance with its waste management plan, on
      condition that that plan is compatible with the rules of the          1.    Declares that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the consoli-
      Treaty and of that directive.                                               dated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted,
                                                                                after amendment, into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing
5.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive                    for acceleration of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer             held by the State and public bodies in joint stock companies,
      on individuals any right on which they might rely before the                and the decrees concerning the ‘special powers’ laid down in the
      national courts for the purpose of challenging a measure                    case of the privatisation of ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA,
      designed to prevent movements of waste which are not in                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      accordance with a waste management plan, on the ground that                 Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      that measure has not been notified to the Commission.                       Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                                                                                (now Article 56 EC);
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 23 May 2000
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-58/99 Commission of the European Communi-                                                   of 25 May 2000
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            in Case C-82/98 P, Max Kögler v Court of Justice of the
(Privatisation of public undertakings — Grant of special                    European Communities and Council of the European
                               powers)                                                                     Union (1)
                          (2000/C 247/02)                                   (Appeal — Staff Case — Weighting applicable to retirement
                                                                                pension)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                   (2000/C 247/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive version will be published in the
In Case C-58/99, Commission of the European Communities                                            European Court Reports)
(Agents: A. Aresu and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
Professor U. Leanza and I.M. Braguglia) — Application for a                 In Case T-95/98: Max Kögler, a former official of the Court of
declaration that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                    Justice of the European Communities, resident at Konz,
consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994                       Germany, represented by T. Baltes, of the Trier Bar, with an
(GURI No 126 of 1 June 1994), converted, after amendment,                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing for acceleration                 R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge v Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-262/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț (Romania) lodged on 2 June 2014  — Sindicatul cadrelor militare disponibilizate, în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD), Constantin Budiș, Vasile Murariu, Vasile Ursache, Ioan Zăpor and Petrea Simionel v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Neamț

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț (Romania) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Sindicatul cadrelor militare disponibilizate, în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD), Constantin Budiș, Vasile Murariu, Vasile Ursache, Ioan Zăpor and Petrea Simionel v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Neamț
   (Case C-262/14)
   2014/C 315/56
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Neamț

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD), Constantin Budiș, Vasile Murariu, Vasile Ursache, Ioan Zăpor and Petrea Simionel

      Defendant: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Neamț

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of discrimination to which that provision refers also covers the creation of a situation in which there is a difference in treatment depending on whether a person who is, or wishes to be, employed is in receipt of a pension?

               2.

               May Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘person in receipt of a pension’ is among the criteria and conditions relating to the concepts of conditions for access to employment, selection criteria and conditions for dismissal?

               3.

               May Article 6 of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as permitting a Member State which has transposed that provision into national law to determine, in the context of judicial proceedings, whether European directives have been inadequately or incorrectly transposed into national law as regards the assessment of the ‘[objective and reasonable justification]’ for the application of a difference in treatment, and also the ‘legitimate aim’ considered by the legislature when adopting the legislation under which provision is made for a difference in treatment?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-112/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2012 — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Sociéte d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2012 — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Sociéte d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-112/12)
   2012/C 157/03
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Sociéte d’Investissement à Capital Variable

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága (Hungary)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the exemption from tax on dividends granted by the Hungarian legislation to a recipient of dividends resident in Hungary compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaties on the principle of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU) and the principle of free movement of capital (Article 56 TFEU (sic)), given that

                           (a)

                           a non-resident recipient of dividends is exempt from tax on dividends only if it meets certain legal requirements, namely that its holding (in the case of shares, the proportion of its registered shares) in the company capital of the resident company at the time of distribution (allocation) of dividends amounted permanently to at least 20 % for at least two consecutive years, taking account of the fact that, in the event that the permanent holding of 20 % is maintained for less than two consecutive years, the company distributing the dividends is not obliged to withhold the tax on the dividends and the company which receives the dividends or, in the event of non-monetary allocations, the company which distributes them are not obliged to pay that tax on submission of their tax return if another person or the party distributing the dividends has guaranteed the payment of the tax;

                           (b)

                           further, a non-resident recipient of dividends does not meet the requirements of the national legislation for exemption from tax when its holding (in the case of shares the proportion of its registered shares) in the company capital of a resident company at the time of distribution (allocation) of dividends is below the minimum level of 20 % required by law, or when it has not maintained that percentage permanently for at least two consecutive years, or, in the event that the permanent holding of 20 % has been maintained for less than two consecutive years, if payment of the tax was not guaranteed by any third party or by the party distributing the dividends;

               2.

               Would the answer to question 1(b) be different, that is to say, would there be any effect on the answer, if:

                           (a)

                           while a resident recipient of dividends is exempt from tax on dividends under the Hungarian legislation, the tax burden of a non-resident recipient of dividends depends on the applicability to it of [Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States] or the [Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital, done at Budapest on 15 January 1990],

                           (b)

                           while a resident recipient of dividends is exempt from tax on dividends under the Hungarian legislation, a non-resident recipient of dividends may either offset such tax against its national tax or bear the final burden, depending on the provisions of its national law.

               3.

               May the national tax authority invoke Article 65(1) TFEU (formerly Article 58(1) EC) and the former Article 220 EC in order to disapply Community law of its own motion?


title: Case C-383/10: Action brought on 30 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/13

         Action brought on 30 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-383/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, by applying a tax exemption only to interest payments by Belgian banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Articles 49 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty) and Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission criticises the national provisions at issue inasmuch as they have the effect of discouraging Belgian residents from using the services of banks established in other Member States of the European Union, as the interest paid by such banks cannot benefit from a tax exemption applicable only to interest paid by Belgian banks.
   As a preliminary issue, the Commission rejects, in particular, the defendant’s argument that direct taxation is an exclusive competence of Member States and makes clear that this area is implicitly but necessarily included in the competence relating to the internal market and therefore constitutes a shared competence between the European Union and the Member States.
   In response to the objections raised by the Belgian authorities, the Commission submits, first of all, that the absence of a complaint brought on this matter by the financial sector has no relevance since an action seeking a declaration of a failure to fulfil obligations is objective and so cannot be subject to there being a complaint. Second and third, the Commission does not agree, first, with the argument that the aforementioned measures are justified by the overriding reason relating to the public interest in ensuring the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and second, with the claim that the legislation at issue is a socio-political measure that protects the public interest. In the fourth place, the applicant rejects the justification of the Belgian authorities relating to the limited effectiveness of extending this exemption and contends that the group of taxpayers to which this measure applies could also be interested by the services of banks established in other Member States. In the fifth place, the Commission challenges the defendant’s argument relating to the disparities existing in the European Union as regards consumer where a bank fails and recalls the fact that this area is subject to European Union harmonisation. Finally, the Commission invokes the fact that Belgium has three official languages (Dutch, French and German) and that the objections raised, relating to the risk of inadequate information because of the use of a language that is not spoken in Belgium by a bank established outside Belgium, are not justified.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-118/05: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — Community policy in the field of water — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-118/05: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Community policy in the field of water - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 60/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-118/05, Action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 10 March 2005, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Government to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005.


title: Case C-539/09: Action brought on 21 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/24

         Action brought on 21 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-539/09)
   2010/C 51/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Conte, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by refusing to permit the Court of Auditors to carry out audits in Germany concerning the administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax which is provided for under Regulation No 1798/2003 and the relevant implementing measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 248(1), (2) and (3) EC, Article 140(2) and Article 142(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002, and Article 10 EC;

               —

               Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject of the present action is the refusal of the German authorities to permit the Court of Auditors of the European Union to carry out audits in Germany concerning the administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax which is provided for under Regulation No 1798/2003 and the relevant implementing measures.
   According to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 248 EC and Regulation No 1605/2002, and also infringed its obligation to cooperate in good faith under Article 10 EC.
   The Court of Auditors audit powers should be interpreted broadly: the role of the Court of Auditors is to audit EU finances and to propose improvements. In order to do so it must have the right to carry out comprehensive audits and checks relating to all sectors and actors concerned by EU revenue and expenditure. Such audits may also be carried out in the Member States, which must, under Article 248(3) EC, Article 140(2) and Article 142(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002, and pursuant to the obligation to cooperate in good faith laid down in Article 10 EC, provide full support for the Court of Auditors activities. That also includes the obligation to permit all audits by the Court of Auditors which are designed to assess how EU financial resources were collected and used.
   In the present case the German authorities refused to permit the Court of Auditors to do precisely that.
   Regulation No 1798/2003 lays down rules and procedures for the lawful and correct assessment of Community revenue. The Regulation forms part of a web of various measures which are designed to ensure that the Member States have at their disposal the correct value added tax yield, and therefore the Community — in optimal circumstances — the own resources to which it is entitled, by means of combating fraudulent practices or preventing their very occurrence. From that perspective, the Commission regards it as necessary that, in order to be able to examine whether value added tax revenue has been lawfully and correctly assessed, the Court of Auditors should be able to check the implementation and application of Regulation No 1798/2003. That means that it should be able to examine whether Member States have established an efficient system of cooperation and assistance and whether they can implement it satisfactorily in practice or whether improvements are required.
   The implementation in practice of the administrative cooperation provided for in Regulation No 1798/2003 has an impact on the own resources based on value added tax to be paid by the Member States. Effective cooperation in this sector prevents value added tax evasion and avoidance and therefore leads automatically to increased value added tax revenue and thus also to an increase in Community own resources based on value added tax. If a Member State does not however cooperate properly, it infringes not only its obligations under Regulation No 1798/2003, but also its obligation under the Directive on value added tax to take all legislative and administrative measures appropriate for ensuring collection of all value added tax due on its territory.


title: Case T-422/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/38

         Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO
   (Case T-422/17)
   (2017/C 293/48)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: UF (represented by: L. Gudaitė, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2017 to eliminate the applicant from the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition EPSO/AD/335/16;

               —

               oblige the defendant to allow the applicant to correct a clear error, by altering the level of knowledge of the Polish language from B1 to C1;

               —

               restore the applicant to the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The basis of the first plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s legitimate expectations and misled him when it confirmed that his application to participate in the competition met all the requirements.

                           —

                           The applicant states that the defendant, having confirmed on 9 January 2017 that his application met all the requirements of the competition notice and having allowed him to participate in the computer-based tests, misled him and did not grant him the opportunity of correcting a clear clerical error relating to the level of knowledge of the Polish language and on account of which he was later eliminated from the competition.

               2.

               The basis of the second plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s rights and legitimate expectations when it eliminated him from the competition for Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist posts.

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that, by the decision of 4 April 2017, the defendant, in taking account of the level of knowledge of the Polish language specified in the application, eliminated him from the competition unjustifiably, because the defendant is aware of his actual level of knowledge of the Polish language on the basis of the information provided in the application for another competition (EPSO/AD/328/16) and of the results of that competition. The applicant states that, according to the case-law of the General Court, the selection board is responsible for duly assessing the diplomas or degrees submitted or the professional competence presented by each candidate, and its decision to eliminate a candidate from a competition is considered to be an act adversely affecting a person, as envisaged in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-96/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and others v ECHA

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/66

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and others v ECHA
   (Case T-96/10)
   2010/C 113/98
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene paste;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil, anthracene paste (CAS Number 90640-81-6) (“anthracene oil (paste)”) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.
   On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil (paste) was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil (paste) as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic mutagenic and also persistent, and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.
   The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application which are identical to those raised in Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA.

      (1)  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)


title: Case C-463/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v A

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v A
   (Case C-463/15)
   (2015/C 363/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: A

      Question referred

   Do Article 2(4) and Article 4, paragraph 1, of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) permit the executing Member State to transpose those provisions into its national law in such a manner as to require that the act should be punishable under its law and that, under its law, a custodial sentence of a maximum period of at least twelve months is laid down for that act?

      (1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case F-103/12: Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/70

         Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-103/12)
   2013/C 26/141
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to her by the decision annulled by that judgment

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 3 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which she suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative.


title: Case F-17/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 October 2007 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors (Staff cases — Official — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 October 2007 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-17/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Official - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 283/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel Pouzol (Combaillaux, France) (represented by: D. Grisay, I. Andoulsi, and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Cortens, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Court of Auditors' decision of 23 November 2006 declaring inadmissible the complaint brought by the applicant against the Commission's decision of 18 May 2006 — Acknowledgment of the applicant's right to a supplementary premium in his years of pensionable service — Application for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 35.


title: Case C-179/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2016 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/123/EC — Articles 14 to 16 — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Conditions for issuing vouchers entailing a tax advantage which are provided by employers to their employees and may be used for accommodation, leisure and/or meals — Restrictions — Monopoly)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2016 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-179/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 14 to 16 - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Conditions for issuing vouchers entailing a tax advantage which are provided by employers to their employees and may be used for accommodation, leisure and/or meals - Restrictions - Monopoly))
   (2016/C 145/05)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by introducing and retaining the Széchenyi leisure card scheme provided for by Government Decree No 55/2011 of 12 April 2011 regulating the issue and use of the Széchenyi leisure card, and amended by Law No CLVI of 21 November 2011 amending certain tax laws and other related measures, Hungary has infringed Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, in so far as:

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Law No XCVI of 1993 on voluntary mutual insurance funds, Paragraph 2(b) of Law No CXXXII of 1997 on branches and commercial agencies of undertakings which have their registered office abroad and Paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 55(1) and (3) and 64(1) of Law No IV of 2006 on companies and firms governed by commercial law, precludes the issue of the Széchenyi leisure card by branches and thereby infringes Article 14, point (3), of Directive 2006/123;

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned national provisions, which does not recognise, for the purposes of the conditions laid down in Paragraph 13(a) to (c) of that decree, the activity of groups whose parent company is not a company formed in accordance with Hungarian law and whose members do not operate in the forms of company provided for by Hungarian law, infringes Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (3) of Directive 2006/123;

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned national provisions, which restricts to banks and financial institutions the possibility of issuing the Széchenyi leisure card as they are the only entities able to meet the conditions laid down by Paragraph 13 of the decree, infringes Article 15(1), (2)(d) and (3) of Directive 2006/123;

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011 infringes Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 inasmuch as it requires, for the issue of the Széchenyi leisure card, the existence of an establishment in Hungary;

               2.

               Declares that the system of Erzsébet vouchers governed by Law No CLVI of 21 November 2011 and Law No CIII of 6 July 2012 on the Erzsébet programme infringes Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU inasmuch as that national legislation establishes a monopoly in favour of public bodies for the issue of vouchers which may be used to obtain cold meals and may be provided by employers to their employees, under advantageous tax conditions, as benefits in kind;

               3.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Others (Copyright and neighbouring rights — Broadcasting of phonograms — Equitable remuneration)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Others (1)

   (Copyright and neighbouring rights - Broadcasting of phonograms - Equitable remuneration)
   (2005/C 217/37)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-192/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (France), made by decision of 17 February 2004, received at the Court on 26 April 2004, in the proceedings between Lagardère Active Broadcast (the successor in title to Europe 1 communication SA) and Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL); third party: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télévision Europe 1 SA (CERT) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               In the case of a broadcast of the kind at issue in this case, Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission does not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting company is established but also by the legislation of the Member State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.

               2.

               Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that, for determination of the equitable remuneration mentioned in that provision, the broadcasting company is not entitled unilaterally to deduct from the amount of the royalty for phonogram use payable in the Member State in which it is established the amount of the royalty paid or claimed in the Member State in whose territory the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12. 06.2004.


title: Case T-236/00: Action brought on 7 September 2000 by Dr Gabriele Stauner and 21 other Members of the European Parliament against the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 316/37
Action brought on 7 September 2000 by Dr Gabriele                        and the European Commission with regard to relations
Stauner and 21 other Members of the European Parlia-                     between the two institutions. In particular, the claim for
ment against the European Parliament and the Com-                        annulment is directed against the rules and procedural pro-
            mission of the European Communities                          visions laid down in the contested agreement concerning the
                                                                         transmission of confidential information by the Commission
                                                                         and the treatment of that information in the Parliament. Those
                         (Case T-236/00)
                                                                         rules and procedural provisions are laid down in point 17 of
                                                                         the contested agreement and, pursuant to point 29, in
                         (2000/C 316/69)                                 Annex III thereto.
                                                                         The applicants maintain that the contested agreement imposes
                   (Language of the case: German)                        impermissible restrictions on their status as members of the
                                                                         Parliament, particularly as regards the powers of control
                                                                         enjoyed by them in that connection vis-à-vis the Commission.
An action against the European Parliament and the Com-                   In particular, the contested agreement and Annex III thereto
mission of the European Communities was brought before the               make no provision for any possible legal protection against
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   measures whereby the Commission and Parliament restrict the
7 September 2000 by Dr Gabriele Stauner and 21 other                     rights to information enjoyed by members of the Parliament.
Members of the European Parliament, represented by Jochim                In addition, the framework agreement imposes obligations on
Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Freshfields Bruckhaus                  the applicants compliance with which would infringe the
Deringer, Berlin.                                                        Treaty and provisions of the Financial Regulation of the
                                                                         European Community and of the Parliament’s Rules of Pro-
                                                                         cedure.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the ‘Framework Agreement on Relations between
      the European Parliament and the Commission’ (Docu-
      ment No C5-0349/2000) concluded on 5 July 2000
      between the European Parliament and the Commission                        Removal from the register of Case T-150/98 (1)
      of the European Communities, together with all annexes
      thereto, in particular Annex III;                                                          (2000/C 316/70)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         By order of 6 July 2000, the President of the Third Chamber,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-150/98: De
The present action for annulment, brought pursuant to                    Haan Beheer BV v Commission of the European Communities.
Article 230 EC, is directed against the Framework Agreement
concluded on 5 July 2000 between the European Parliament                 (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Case T-423/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulation terminating an interim review — Comparison between the normal value and the export price — Taking into account the value added tax of the country of origin — Application of a different methodology to that used in the initial investigation — Change in circumstances — Articles 2(10)(b) and 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 2(10)(b) and 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials v Council
   (Case T-423/09) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulation terminating an interim review - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Taking into account the value added tax of the country of origin - Application of a different methodology to that used in the initial investigation - Change in circumstances - Articles 2(10)(b) and 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 2(10)(b) and 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
   2012/C 32/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd (Dashiqiao, China) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially J.-P. Hix and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently by G. Berrisch, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 826/2009 of 7 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 240, p. 7), in so far as the anti-dumping duty it sets in relation to the applicant exceeds that which would be applicable if that duty had been determined on the basis of the method of calculation applied in the original investigation in order to take account of the fact that Chinese export VAT was not refunded.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-410/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — GEMA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — GEMA v Commission
   (Case T-410/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold, I. Brinker, T. Holzmüller, lawyers and J. Schwarze, professeur)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, A. Antoniadis and O. Weber, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: RTL Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); CLT-UFA (Luxembourg); Music Choice Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom); ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG (Unterföhring, Germany); Modern Times Group MTG AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (London); and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV (VPRT) (Berlin) (represented initially by M. Hansen, A. Weitbrecht and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, then M. Hansen, A. Weitbrecht, J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers, and J. Kallaugher, solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA);

               2.

               Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern GEMA;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GEMA, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the intervention;

               4.

               Orders RTL Group SA, CLT-UFA, Music Choice Europe Ltd, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG, Modern Times Group MTG AB, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV (VPRT) to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GEMA relating to the intervention;

               5.

               Orders GEMA, the Commission, RTL Group, CLT-UFA and Music Choice Europe to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-238/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Patrick O'Malley against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/17
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eileen Oglesby                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-237/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                            (2003/C 239/32)
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel An
                                                                                Capall Oir to replace the MFV An Capall Ban;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eileen Oglesby,                              ings.
Kincasslagh, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               03 (1).
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
       replace the MFV Neptune;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.                                                                  Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Paul O’Neill against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (Case T-239/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/34)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Paul O’Neill,
                                                                              Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Patrick O’Malley
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-238/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/33)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                      (Language of the case: English)                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           MFV Paraclete;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Patrick O’Malley,
Galway, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,                —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                                 ings.


title: Case C-618/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Société Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/59

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Société Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-618/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/130
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


               25.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/21

         Action brought on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-13/10)
   2010/C 320/10
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

               1.

               to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 248/10/COL concerning Cases Nos 66111 and 66744 of 21 June 2010;

               2.

               to order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant, Aleris Ungplan AS, is a private provider of youth services in Norway. Aleris Ungplan AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleris Group which has its headquarter in Stockholm, Sweden.

               —

               The Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the exclusion of all youth care providers except for non-profit organisations from two public procurements relating to youth care services in Norway was contrary to the EEA Agreement.

               —

               With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case, considering that the exclusions were not contrary to the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           failed to uphold the principle of non-discrimination of Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC and the rules applicable to public procurement under EEA law, and

                           —

                           failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision.


title: Case T-505/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Hunter — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter)
      (Case T-505/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Hunter - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)
      (2010/C 288/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development (Leopoldshohe, Germany) (represented by: C. Czychowski, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008, as corrected on 5 February 2009 (Case R 1733/2007-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Hunter.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-548/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)
   (Case T-548/11)
   2012/C 6/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 114/2011-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The international trade mark registration No W 983683 of the figurative mark ‘real,- QUALITY’, in red, blue and beige, for services in class 36

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 249791 of the word mark ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; Portuguese trade mark registration No 249793 of the word mark ‘REAL SEGUROS’, for services in class 36; Portuguese figurative mark registration No 254390 comprising the word element ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; various unregistered rights claimed to be protected in all Member States or in Portugal

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed marks.


title: Case C-159/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Jacson of Scandinavia AB (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national business name Jacson of Scandinavia AB — Declaration of invalidity — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/23

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Jacson of Scandinavia AB
   (Case C-159/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES - Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national business name Jacson of Scandinavia AB - Declaration of invalidity - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2014/C 52/40
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (represented by: A.J. Rodrigues, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Guimarães and G. Schneider, Agents), Jacson of Scandinavia AB

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda v OHIM, Jacson of Scandinavia AB, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2009 (Case R 1253/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jacson of Scandinavia AB and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços Lda is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-221/04: Action brought on 27 May 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/9

         Action brought on 27 May 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-221/04)
   (2004/C 179/19)
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               declare that, in so far as the authorities in Castilla y Leon authorise the setting of snares in several private hunting areas, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1) and Annex VI of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The permits for fox hunting with snares granted by the authorities of Castilla y León are contrary to Article 12(1) and Annex VI of Directive 92/43/EEC for two reasons.
   First, the use of snares has been authorised in the regions of Aldeanueva de la Sierra and Mediana de Voltoya, which involves the hunting or deliberate disturbance of an animal species, Lutra lutra (Otter), included in Annex IV of the Directive, which is a species of Community interest that requires special protection. The authorities of Castilla y León have recognised the presence of otters in those regions.
   Second, the snare is a non-selective method of hunting, since any animal may be trapped, regardless of whether or not its capture is desired (in this case the fox). The Spanish authorities' argument that the permits contain a clause requiring other species to be freed does not mean the traps are selective, since the animals captured usually suffer injury, including the loss of limbs, by attempting to free themselves from the snares.

      (1)  OJ L 206 of 22. 7. 1992, p. 7.