title: Case C-135/05: Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/15

         Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic
   (Case C-135/05)
   (2005/C 132/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, (2) under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (4) on the landfill of waste;

               2.

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On the basis of numerous documents, the Commission has learned of the large number of tips in Italian territory operating illegally and without control by the public authorities, some of which contain hazardous waste,
   The Commission considers that while it tolerates the presence of such tips, the Italian Republic is infringing its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under Articles 2(1) of Council Directive 912/689/EEC on hazardous waste.
   As regards the tips existing as at 16 July 2991, with permits or already functioning by that date, the lack of information on the reorganisation plans which the managers of such tips should have submitted by 16 July 2002 prompts the Commission to consider that such reorganisation plans and the relevant authorisation measures and measures for the possible closure of tips not meeting the requirements of the directive are non-existent.
   The Commission considers therefore that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

      (1)  OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

      (3)  OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.

      (4)  OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-47/02: Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and Hannelore Danzer against the Council of the European Union

text:
4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/61
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
By the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of
EUR 28 million on the applicant for infringement of
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay EUR 1852721 to the appli-
Article 81(1) EC. In that decision, the Commission found that
                                                                              cants’ legal representatives within 14 days and declare
agreements had been concluded between various German
                                                                              Article 2(1)(f) of Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
banks, including the applicant, concerning the type and
                                                                              9 March 1968 (1) and Article 47 of Council Directive
amount of bank charges, the agreements in question having
                                                                              78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 (2). to be contrary to
been aimed, during the transitional period, at fixing the way in
                                                                              European Community law;
which charges were to be made for exchanging bank notes in
the currencies of the countries taking part in monetary union,
in the form of a percentage, together with a target price of
around 3 %.                                                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant denies that it took part in an agreement contrary
to Article 81(1) EC. It maintains that the evidence produced
by the Commission in that regard is insufficient. In addition,
the Commission failed to show the effects of the alleged
agreement on trade between Member States.
The Commission wrongly assumed that there was an ongoing                Pleas in law and main arguments
infringement. The calculation of the fine is wrong, because the
Commission did not carry out any assessment of the applicant’s
individual conduct.
In the course of the procedure, the Commission infringed the
                                                                        The applicants are managing directors of various Austrian
applicant’s rights of defence, inasmuch as it refused to allow
                                                                        companies. They claim that the obligation to disclose the
the applicant to have sight of the files relating to the
                                                                        annual accounts of companies limited by shares and equivalent
circumstances resulting in the decision to discontinue the
                                                                        partnerships is incompatible with primary Community law,
procedure against other banks and did not, in the contested
                                                                        the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community and the
decision, examine the statements made by the applicant in its
                                                                        case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
response to the main points raised in the complaint and in the
                                                                        On those grounds the applicants have to date refused to
oral hearing.
                                                                        disclose the annual accounts in the requisite form for the
                                                                        companies for which they are responsible. By the time this
The imposition of a fine on the applicant exceeds the                   action was brought fines of EUR 1 852 721 had been imposed
Commission’s discretionary power and discriminates against              on the applicants.
the applicant by comparison with those entities who were the
subject of the complaint and on whom it was decided not to
impose a fine. The Commission should likewise have decided
to discontinue the procedure as against the applicant.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the disclosure required by the
                                                                        directives in question entails the disclosure of confidential
                                                                        business information which is contrary to EC competition law
                                                                        and the general principle of the protection of business and
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer                    trade secrets. The publication of important and confidential
and Hannelore Danzer against the Council of the Euro-                   business data is also disproportionate and inadmissible in the
                          pean Union                                    light of Article 287 EC.
                         (Case T-47/02)
                       (2002/C 109/117)
                                                                        The applicants argue, further, that Article 2(1)(f) of Directive
                  (Language of the case: German)                        68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC have no
                                                                        basis in Article 44(2)(g) EC nor are they the type of provision
                                                                        which is properly covered by a ‘directive’ within the meaning
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 of Article 249 EC. The provisions do not harmonise existing
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              law but ‘create’ new law. Moreover, they are contrary to the
Communities on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and                   principle of proportionality and breach the Austrian data
Hannelore Danzer, Linz (Austrian Republic), represented by              protection law, the fundamental right to property, the funda-
J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and             mental right to freedom of economic activity and the protec-
P. Burgstaller.                                                         tion of private tax matters.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/62                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.5.2002
Finally, the applicants submit that the objectives of the Council          The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to comply
in the directives cited are not covered by Community law and               with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons as
are therefore a direct cause of the refusal to disclose the                prescribed by Article 253 of the EC Treaty, and with the
accounts, and that the causal link between the objectives of               guidelines for the calculation of fines. According to the
the directive and the damage caused and anticipated is thus                applicant, the Commission, in determining the actual econ-
clear.                                                                     omic power of the parties concerned, failed to define the
                                                                           relevant market. It maintains that the decision does not make
                                                                           it clear whether the relevant market is the private label market
(1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-              or the beer market in general. Moreover, the Commission
    ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests    over-estimated the economic power of the applicant in the
    of members and others, are required by Member States of                market for private label beer, if and in so far as it is that market
    companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of                which is to be regarded as the relevant market. The applicant
    Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards        further argues that the Commission wrongly characterised the
    equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
    1968(I), p. 41).
                                                                           role played by the applicant in the cartel in question as an
(2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on           active role. According to the applicant, its role must be
    Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain     regarded as having been purely passive, or at least as less
    types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).                             active.
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the Notice on
                                                                           Cooperation and of the principle of equal treatment. According
                                                                           to the applicant, the Commission failed to take sufficient
                                                                           account of the significance of the applicant’s statements
                                                                           proving the infringement of the rules. The Commission
                                                                           consequently treated similar situations in a dissimilar way, by
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerij                            not applying the same reduction in the fine where there was a
Haacht N.V. against the Commission of the European                         comparable level of cooperation. Moreover, the Commission
                             Communities                                   treated dissimilar situations in a similar way, by applying the
                                                                           same reduction in the fines imposed on the applicant and on
                            (Case T-48/02)                                 parties who cooperated less, or not at all, in the Commission’s
                                                                           investigation.
                          (2002/C 109/118)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Natio-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 nale against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerij                                                     ties
Haacht N.V., established at Boortmeerbeek (Belgium), rep-
resented by Yves van Gerven, Frédéric Louis and Hendrik                                             (Case T-49/02)
Viane, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/119)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul Article 4 of the decision in issue, in so far as it
      concerns Brouwerij Haacht N.V. and, in so far as may be
      necessary, order that no fine be imposed on Brouwerij
      Haacht N.V. or substantially reduce the fine;                        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 in any event.                  European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie
                                                                           Nationale, established at Bascharage (Luxembourg), represent-
                                                                           ed by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Louis Schiltz, lawyers,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The action is directed against the decision in so far as it
imposes a fine on the applicant in consequence of the private              —     annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 5 Decem-
label cartel on the Belgian beer market.                                         ber 2001 in Case COMP/37800/F3 — Brasseries Luxem-


title: Case C-173/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel (Carriage by air — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Scope — Article 3(1)(a) — Concept of flight )

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel
   (Case C-173/07) (1)

   (Carriage by air - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Scope - Article 3(1)(a) - Concept of ‘flight’)
   (2008/C 223/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland

      Defendant: Diether Schenkel
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main –Interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Concept of ‘departure’ — Outward and return ticket from a Member State to a non-member country — Cancellation of the return flight
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the EC Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport located in a non-member country. The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking has no effect on the interpretation of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-288/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 May 2016 — IK ‘L.Č.’

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 May 2016 — IK ‘L.Č.’
   (Case C-288/16)
   (2016/C 260/42)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IK ‘L.Č.’

      Other party: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down therein is applicable only where there is a direct legal connection or a reciprocal contractual relationship between the services provider and the consignee or the consignor of the goods?

               2.

               What criteria must be met by the direct connection referred to in the abovementioned provision in order for a service connected with the importation or exportation of goods to be exempt?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-619/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Mamoli Robinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/20

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Mamoli Robinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission
   (Case C-619/13 P)
   2014/C 45/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, varying the judgment delivered by the General Court on 16 September 2013 in Case T-376/10 Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission,

                           —

                           annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it finds that Mamoli Robinetteria SpA infringed Article 101 TFEU and, consequently, annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes on Mamoli Robinetteria SpA a fine amounting to 10 % of the total turnover for 2009, subsequently reduced to EUR 1 041 531 on account of Mamoli’s particular situation;

               —

               On the substance, in the alternative:

                           —

                           annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), by recalculating the fine and reducing it to an amount equal to 0.3 % of the turnover of Mamoli Robinetteria for the year 2003 or, in any event, to such lesser amount, compared with the penalty imposed, as the Court may deem appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward seven grounds of appeal in support of its action.

               1.

               First ground of appeal. Infringement of the procedural principles governing the formulation of the pleas in law
               The appellant maintains that the General Court made a significant error in confusing the pleas in law with the arguments put forward in support of those pleas themselves. Such an error resulted in part of the appellant’s case being held to be inadmissible.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal. Infringement of the rights of the defence
               The appellant maintains that, prior to adoption of the decision, the other parties to the proceedings had the opportunity to put forward arguments in their defence in relation to circumstances not disclosed to Mamoli. The General Court did not properly evaluate this aspect.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal. Breach of the principle of legality in the adoption of the Leniency Notices, in the light of the infringement of Articles 101 to 105 TFEU taken together, and of Article 23 of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1)

               The entire procedure originates in and is based on the Commission Notices which established what is known as the leniency programme. The appellant submits that, in the absence of an act of the European legislature, the Commission does not have any power to grant total or partial immunity for undertakings or, on the basis of the notice relating thereto, to initiate competition-law proceedings which result in the imposition of heavy penalties. The General Court did not provide an adequate response to the appellant’s objections inasmuch as it failed to give due consideration to the various points of law raised.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003
               The appellant submits that the Commission made substantial errors in the course of its investigation. It maintains that the Commission disregarded the specific nature of the Italian market (for example, structure, characteristics, role of the wholesalers) and conflated the situation on the Italian market with that existing on the German market. That error invalidated the Commission’s conclusions regarding the existence on the Italian market of a price-fixing cartel. Furthermore, the appellant submits that the Commission, as a result of the errors complained of, failed to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon it. No account at all was taken of the significance of Ideal Standard’s role on the Italian market. The General Court wholly disregarded the appellant’s complaints and arguments.

               5.

               Fifth ground of appeal. Infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and of the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, in the imposition of the fine on Mamoli and in the determination of the amount of the fine
               The Commission, in imposing on the appellant the maximum penalty, infringed the principles mentioned above. The appellant maintains that its actual conduct was not correctly evaluated by the Commission, which decided on the amount of the fine without taking account of Mamoli’s conduct or of the actual impact of that conduct in the context of the infringement in issue. The Commission also erred in failing to recognise any mitigating circumstances with regard to Mamoli. Although the General Court accepted certain of Mamoli’s objections concerning the errors made by the Commission in the determination of the fine, it did not grant a reduction in the fine.

               6.

               Sixth ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in conjunction with point 35 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)
               The appellant maintains that, although the Commission understood that Mamoli was in fact in a critical economic situation which undermined the company’s ability to pay, it adopted a decision unsuitable for attaining the objective sought. The General Court failed to assess the arguments put forward by Mamoli.

               7.

               Seventh ground of appeal. Infringement of procedural rules
               The General Court unlawfully refused to grant Mamoli’s applications for measures of inquiry.

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


               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/2

         Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures
   2009/C 153/02
   On 16 June 2009, the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Papasavvas to replace the President of the Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.


title: Case C-550/07 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ld and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/19

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ld and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-550/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/28)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd (represented by: C. Swaak, advocaat, M. Mollica and M. van der Woude, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, Association européenne des juristes d'entreprise (AEJE), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter, International Bar Association
   Form of order sought
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03, insofar as it rejected the claim of LPP for communications with Akzo Nobel's in-house lawyer;

               —

               annul the Rejection Decision of 8 May 2003 of the Commission, in as far as it refused to return the e-mail correspondence with Akzo Nobel's in-house lawyer (part of Set B documents);

               —

               order the Commission to pay costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the CFI in as far as they concern the plea raised in the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellants submit that by rejecting this claim, the CFI violated Community Law. In particular, the Appellants contend that by strictly following a partial and literal interpretation of a few paragraphs of AM&S Europe v Commission
       (1), the CFI:

               1.

               gave incorrect interpretation of the principle of LPP as it is explained in AM&S, thereby violating the principle of equality (section B)

               2.

               in the alternative, by refusing to reinterpret the principle of LPP in view of the significant developments in the legal landscape, violated the general principles of protection of the rights of defence and of legal certainty (section C); and

               3.

               in the further alternative, violated Article 5 EC (principle of attribution of competence) and the principle of national procedural autonomy (section D).

      (1)  Case 155/79, (1982) p. 1575.


title: Case T-167/15: Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/23

         Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)

   (Case T-167/15)
   (2015/C 178/23)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. (Veitsbronn, Deutschland) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Appeal Board: Freistaat Bayern (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 28/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the sign ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’ — Community trade mark No 10 144 392 — invalid;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-124/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca
   (Case C-124/16)
   (2016/C 260/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Ianos Tranca
   Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 2 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not subsequently have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can verifiably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification?

               2.

               Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?

      (1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).


title: Case T-156/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/58

         Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)
   (Case T-156/14)
   2014/C 135/76
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 in Case R 1335/2013-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘StartUp’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 11 792 009

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case T-533/14 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2014 by Desislava Kolarova against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 in Case F-88/13, Kolarova v REA

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/13

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2014 by Desislava Kolarova against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 in Case F-88/13, Kolarova v REA

   (Case T-533/14 P)
   2014/C 351/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Desislava Kolarova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 in Case F-88/13 Ms Desislava Kolarova v Research Executive Agency, seeking the annulment of the decision of PMO.1, served on 28 November 2012, by which the appellants application of 20 July 2012 concerning the treatment of her mother, Ms Anna Borisova Petrova, as a person to be treated as a dependent child under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for the period from 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013;

               —

               Declare the action of 17 September 2013 admissible and uphold the claims of the appellant made at first instance;

               —

               Consequently, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Rule on costs and order REA and/or the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the law and a restriction of the rights of the defence of the appellant, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) wrongly considered that it had insufficient information from the documents produced by the parties and, in consequence, took the view that the oral procedure should not be opened.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST wrongly considered that the appellant’s argument that an agreement such as the service agreement ‘does not remove the responsibility from the proxy holder’, manifestly failing to taking account of the wording of Article 2(2) and Article 91a of the Staff Regulations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the appellant’s right to effective access to the courts.


title: Case F-119/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/67

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol
   (Case F-119/12) (1)

   ((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))
   2014/C 253/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stephanie Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and for Europol to be ordered to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other compensation that she actually received

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Ms Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 379 of 08/12/2012, p. 36.


title: Case T-260/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and RJR Acquisition Corp. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/39
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   respect to other economic and non-economic injuries arising
Appeal:                                                                 therefrom. The payment of these customs duties and VAT has
                                                                        allegedly been avoided by smuggling cigarettes into the
Grounds for bringing          No likelihood of confusion within         European Union. This is the second time that the European
the action:                   the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of         Community has commenced such proceedings (1). In the
                              Council Regulation (EC) 40/94             current proceedings, the Commission is also acting as agent
                              of 20 December 1993 on the                for Member States for the recovery of these taxes allegedly
                              Community trade mark (1)                  owed to them.
(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the Community has no competence
                                                                        to commence these proceedings. According to the applicants,
                                                                        neither the EC Treaty nor any other act confers on the
                                                                        European Commission the competence to act as a legal person,
                                                                        especially not outside the jurisdiction of the Member States, in
                                                                        order independently to protect its financial interests in this
                                                                        way outside the Community or to combat fraud in this way;
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by R.J. Reynolds                      nor is the action in question a joint action by the Commission
Tobacco Holdings, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                     and the Member States, since not all Member States are
national, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and RJR                    involved in the proceedings.
Acquisition Corp. against the Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities
                         (Case T-260/01)                                The current proceedings also constitute, according to the
                                                                        applicants, an attempt to recover the allegedly unpaid taxes.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the European Commission has no
                          (2002/C 3/67)                                 competence to collect taxes. This competence lies solely with
                                                                        the Member States within their respective territories. According
                                                                        to the applicants, the Commission should therefore commence
                  (Language of the case: English)                       actions against the Member States for failing properly to apply
                                                                        the Communities’ rules on customs duties and VAT.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicants also submit that the Community is not
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by R.J. Reynolds                competent to act as agent for the Member States in the
Tobacco Holdings, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International,             proceedings.
Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and RJR Acquisition
Corp., represented by Mr Paul Lomas and Mr Onno Brouwer
of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom).
                                                                        According to the applicants, the Commission has also failed to
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             follow the proper procedure leading up to the decision to
                                                                        commence these proceedings. The Commission should have
                                                                        followed the procedure set out in Article 280 (4) and 251 EC
—     annul the Commission’s decision, which became known               Treaty to adopt measures combatting fraud. Furthermore, the
      to the applicant on 6 August 2001, to commence the
                                                                        Commission has not respected the applicants right to be heard
      second US proceedings;
                                                                        and their right to be provided with reasons. Moreover, the
                                                                        applicants contend that the Commission violated the principle
—     order that the Commission pay the costs of the present            of legal certainty, the rights of defence and due process,
      proceedings, including those of the applicants and                the principle of proportionality and the principle of sound
      intervening parties.                                              administration. Finally, the Applicants contend that the Com-
                                                                        mission misused its powers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) The decision to commence the first proceedings is being contested
                                                                            by the applicants in Case T-379/00 (JO C 79 of 10.3.2001, p. 24).
The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
by the European Community before a United States Court, in
which the Community is seeking damages in respect of
allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT, and relief in


title: Case T-590/15: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2016 — Onix Asigurări v EIOPA (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Application for an inquiry to be opened into the alleged infringement of EU law — Decision of the Chair of EIOPA not to open an inquiry — Decision of the Appeals Committee to dismiss as inadmissible the complaint — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Act not open to challenge — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/36

         Order of the General Court of 24 June 2016 — Onix Asigurări v EIOPA
   (Case T-590/15) (1)

   ((Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Application for an inquiry to be opened into the alleged infringement of EU law - Decision of the Chair of EIOPA not to open an inquiry - Decision of the Appeals Committee to dismiss as inadmissible the complaint - Time-limits for bringing proceedings - Act not open to challenge - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis))
   (2016/C 305/50)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Onix Asigurări SA (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: M. Vladu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (represented by: C. Coucke and S. Dispiter, Agents, and H.-G. Kamman, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, primarily, an application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that EIOPA illegally failed to take a decision against the incorrect application, by the Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS, the Italian supervisory authority for the insurance sector), of Article 40(6) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision EIOPA-14-267 of the Chair of EIOPA dated 6 June 2014 on the opening of an inquiry under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 48), and of Decision BOA 2015 001 of the Appeals Committee dated 3 August 2015, rejecting as inadmissible an appeal brought by Onix Asigurări under Article 60 of Regulation No 1094/2010 and, secondly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the abovementioned omission and the adoption of those decisions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Onix Asigurări SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA).

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case C-269/11: Action brought on 31 May 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/19

         Action brought on 31 May 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-269/11)
   2011/C 232/31
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by permitting travel agencies, pursuant to Paragraph 89 of Law No 235/2004 Coll. on Value Added Tax, to apply the special scheme for travel agents to the provision of travel services to persons other than travellers, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the Czech Republic the special scheme of VAT for travel agents introduced by Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC is applied not only to supplies provided by travel agents to travellers but also to supplies provided to persons other than travellers. Pursuant to Paragraph 89 of Law No 235/2004 Coll. on Value Added Tax, the special scheme is also applied in the Czech Republic where a travel service is provided to a legal person which sells that service on to other travel agents. In the opinion of the Commission, that is contrary to the provisions of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, which require the special scheme for travel agents to be used only in cases where a travel service is supplied to a traveller. The wording of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, and the objective which those provisions pursue, support the position of the Commission.


title: Case F-59/09 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Annual appraisal — Internal rules — Appeals procedure — Right to be heard — Infringement by the Appeals Committee — Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/48

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — De Nicola v EIB
      (Case F-59/09 RENV) (1)

      (Civil Service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - EIB staff - Annual appraisal - Internal rules - Appeals procedure - Right to be heard - Infringement by the Appeals Committee - Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee - Psychological harassment - No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages)
      (2015/C 016/71)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      First, application for annulment of the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008, which do not include the applicant’s name, and of the applicants appraisal in respect of 2007. Secondly, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee to remain seized notwithstanding a request to exclude a member of that committee. Lastly, application to establish that the applicant is the victim of psychological harassment and for an order that the defendant cease the harassment and pay damages for the material and non-material harm sustained.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 November 2008;

                  2.

                  Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages for the harm alleged as a result of psychological harassment;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-59/09, T-264/11 P and F-59/09 RENV.

         (1)  OJ C 205, 29/8/2009, p. 49.


title: Case T-256/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Giuntoli/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/32

         Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Giuntoli/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA)
   (Case T-256/14)
   2014/C 253/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andrea Giuntoli (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 February 2014 given in Case R 886/2013-2;

               —

               Order OHIM and those who oppose this request to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘CREMERIA TOSCANA’ for goods and services in the Classes 30, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 5 49  346

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société des produits Nestlé SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘la Cremeria’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the appealed decision, accepted the opposition and partially rejected the CTM application.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-618/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Voigt v Parliament

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/35

         Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Voigt v Parliament
   (Case T-618/15)
   (2016/C 106/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Udo Voigt (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the refusal of the President of the European Parliament to give access to the rooms of the European Parliament for the applicant’s press-conference planned for 16 June 2015;

               —

               annul the ban from entering the premises of the European Parliament imposed by the President of the European Parliament on the Russian participants of the press conference of 16 June 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the refusal of the use of the requested rooms and the ban imposed on the Russian participants of the press conference from entering the European Parliament infringes the Treaties or the relevant provisions for their enforcement.

                           —

                           In accordance with the rules of the President of the European Parliament’s office on political group meetings of 4 July 2005, the applicant is entitled to have the requested rooms made available. No exceptional grounds for the refusal were present, since the rooms had not been reserved for the time at issue and the planned press conference did not pose a risk to security and would not have adversely affected the Parliament’s functioning. The applicant was thereby hindered from providing information on his parliamentary work.

                           —

                           The ban from entering the premises imposed on the Russian guests infringes the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin and nationality (Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

               2.

               Second plea in law: misuse of powers

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the actions of the President of the European Parliament were manifestly purely arbitrary and are diametrically opposed to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the Treaties.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 1996 in Case C-126/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): A. Hallouzi-Choho v. Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement - Article 41 (1) - Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social security - Direct effect - Spouse of a Moroccan migrant worker - Special procedures for applying the Netherlands legislation on general old-age insurance)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/ 11
1 . annuls Commission Decision 93/659/EC of                            Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded
     25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts                 on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)
     presented by the Member States in respect of the                  No 2211 /78 of 26 September 1978, is to be interpreted as
     expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural                 precluding a Member State from refusing, on the ground
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee                    that the person concerned is of Moroccan nationality, to
     Section, in so far as it did not charge to the EAGGF the          grant benefits such as the transitional benefits established by
     sum of DM 838 636 in respect of expenses relating to              the AOW, which are provided for by its legislation in the
     the import into Germany of animals from Belgium and               case of nationals who satisfy certain residence conditions in
     France and the sum of DM 311 529 in respect of                    that State, to the spouse of a Moroccan worker who fulfils
     expenditure relating to the export of animals to Italy;           such residence conditions.
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                        (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 October 1996
                                                                       in Case      C-3 80/95 :        Commission of the European
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( ! )
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                       of 3 October 1996                                      Directive 91/414/EEC — Failure to transpose)
in Case C-126/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                           ( 96/C 354/21
the Centrale Raad van Beroep ): A. Hallouzi-Choho v.
         Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank ( 1 )                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
(EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 (1) —
Principle ofnon-discrimination in matters ofsocial security            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— Direct effect — Spouse ofa Moroccan migrant worker —                          published in the European Court Reports)
Special procedures for applying the Netherlands legislation
                 on general old-age insurance)
                                                                       In Case C-3 80/95 : Commission of the European
                            ( 96/C 354/20 )                            Communities ( Agent: Maria Condou-Durande ) v. Hellenic
                                                                       Republic ( Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                          Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                       adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Directive 91 /414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
          published in the European Court Reports)                     placing of plant protection products on the market, the
                                                                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
In Case C-126/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177            EC Treaty and that Directive — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep                     composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G.
[Higher Social Security Court] for a preliminary ruling in the         Hirsch ( Rapporteur), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn and
proceedings pending before that court between A.                       H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R.
Hallouzi-Choho         and        Bestuur   van      de   Sociale      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 October 1996 ,
Verzekeringsbank — on the interpretation of Article 41 ( 1 )           in which it :
of the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco,                          I. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded on behalf                    period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
of the Community by Council Regulation ( EEC )                              necessary to comply with Council Directive
No 2211 /78 of 26 September 1978 ( OJ No L 264 , 1978 ,                     91 /414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of
p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch,               plant protection products on the market, the Hellenic
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and J. L.                   Article 23 of that Directive;
Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; D.
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 October 1996 , the operative           2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
Article 41 (1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement between the
 European Economic Community and the Kingdom of


title: Case F-61/14: Action brought on 7 July 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/61

         Action brought on 7 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-61/14)
   2014/C 421/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Case F-39/06: Action brought on  11 April 2006  — Chassagne v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/53

         Action brought on 11 April 2006 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-39/06)
   (2006/C 131/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal and therefore inapplicable to the applicant Article 8 of Annex VII of the new Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               Award the applicant damages for non-pecuniary loss in the symbolic sum of EUR 1 and for pecuniary loss in the sum of EUR 16 473.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an Official of the Commission, is originally from Réunion, a French Overseas Department. He brought the present action following the dismissal of a complaint which he had made against his salary statement for July 2005 containing the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses.
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges that Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 May 2004 is illegal. He claims that that provision is contrary to Community law in that it entails differences in remuneration based on the place of origin of Officials as well as discrimination contrary to Articles 12 EC and 229 EC amongst others, and more generally on the basis of nationality, belonging to a linguistic minority, ethnic origin or race.
   The applicant also claims that that provision infringes other general principles of Community law, such as the duty to state reasons and the principles of proportionality, transparency and sound administration, as well as of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.


title: Case T-501/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Netherlands v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Integrated administration and control system — Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are not observed — Minor non-compliance — Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 71(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Burden of proof — Interpretation of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-501/15) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Integrated administration and control system - Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are not observed - Minor non-compliance - Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 71(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Burden of proof - Interpretation of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009))
   (2017/C 151/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and H. Stergiou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Brodie, subsequently by J. Kraehling, finally by J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, 39) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Case T-130/10: Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Lux Management v OHIM — Zeis Excelsa (KULTE)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/46

         Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Lux Management v OHIM — Zeis Excelsa (KULTE)
   (Case T-130/10)
   2010/C 134/75
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lux Management Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Mas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zeis Excelsa SPA (Montegranaro, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 January 2010 in case R 712/2008-4 without object;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 January 2010 in case R 712/2008-4 because it failed to take into account the evidence presented by the applicant;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 January 2010 in case R 712/2008-4 because it lacks motivation regarding the acquiescence of the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for revocation by the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for revocation: The figurative mark ‘KULTE’ for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the revocation: Italian trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘CULT’, for all goods in class 25; international trade mark registration with effect in France and the Benelux of the figurative mark ‘CULT’, for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared partially invalid the registration of the Community trade mark subject of the application for revocation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to recognise that its decision is without object because of the fact that the parties have reached an agreement relating to the coexistence of the trade marks in question and the subsequent request of withdrawal; infringement of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as the Board of Appeal refused to admit new evidence presented by the applicant; infringement of Article 57(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the meaning of evidence transmitted and failed to provide reasons with regard to the proof of acquiescence by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for revocation.


title: Case C-507/13: Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, intervener: European Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, intervener: European Commission
   (Case C-507/13) (1)

   (2015/C 146/38)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case T-128/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — SPM v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Rules for importing of bananas from ACP countries into the European Union — Lawful or unlawful conduct — Loss allegedly suffered by independent ACP producer)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — SPM v Council and Commission
   (Case T-128/05) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Rules for importing of bananas from ACP countries into the European Union - Lawful or unlawful conduct - Loss allegedly suffered by independent ACP producer)
   (2009/C 6/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) (Douala, Cameroon) (represented initially by P. Soler Couteaux and S. Cahn, then by S. Cahn, B. Doré and A. Farache, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, M. Balta and A. Westerhoff Löfflerova, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, based, principally, on the unlawful conduct of the Council and the Commission in the establishment of the rules relating to the import of bananas into the Community and, alternatively, on the liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by those two institutions.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Iosif Dascalu against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-133/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97             EN                     Official Journal- of the European Communities                                No C 228/ 17
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Case T-16/97 (').
                                                                           — annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                           — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Iosif Dascalu against                         rejecting the applicant's complaint,
         the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-133/97)                                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                             ( 97/C 228/38 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                           Case T-16/97 ( ! ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 1997
by Iosif Dascalu, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Jose Manuel Pinto
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Teixeira against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996                                                      ( Case T-136/97 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                       97/C 228 /40 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                              (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                    An action against the Commission of the European
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                   Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                            by Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira, residing at Sarajevo
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                                ( Bosnia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Case T-16/97 (»).
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Laurens Cerdijn                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-135/97 )                                — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                               ( 97/C 228/39 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                             Case T-16/97 (»).
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                           (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
 Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Laurens Cerdijn, residing at Hofstade ( Belgium ),


title: Case C-332/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — ProRail NV v Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH, (Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 — Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters — Direct taking of evidence — Designation of an expert — Task carried out partly in the Member State of the referring court and partly in another Member State)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — ProRail NV v Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH,
   (Case C-332/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters - Direct taking of evidence - Designation of an expert - Task carried out partly in the Member State of the referring court and partly in another Member State)
   2013/C 114/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ProRail NV

      Defendants: Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) and of Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Direct taking of evidence by the requesting court — Designation of an expert and the assignment to that expert, by the courts of a Member State, of a task which must be carried out partly in the Member State of the courts in question and partly in another Member State — Whether or not the application of the mechanism provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 1206/2001 is obligatory

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(1)(b) and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court of one Member State, which wishes the task of taking of evidence entrusted to an expert to be carried out in another Member State, is not necessarily required to use the method of taking evidence laid down by those provisions to be able to order the taking of that evidence.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2003 in Case C-404/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 — Aid to publicly-owned shipyards — Commission Decision 2000/131/EC ordering repayment — Non-implementation)

text:
2.8.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 372, 23.12.2000.
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 12 June 2003
in Case C-363/00: Commission of the European Commu-
                    nities v Italian Republic (1)                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Commu-
nities' own resources — Error in crediting the account                                                    of 26 June 2003
 opened in the name of the Commission — Default interest)
                                                                              in Case C-404/00: Commission of the European Commu-
                            (2003/C 184/04)                                                        nities v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                              (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid —
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                          Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 — Aid to publicly-owned ship-
                                                                              yards — Commission Decision 2000/131/EC ordering repay-
                                                                                ment — Non-implementation)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)                                                          (2003/C 184/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-363/00, Commission of the European Communities                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
(Agents: E. Traversa and G. Wilms) v Italian Republic (Agents:                                        the European Court Reports)
U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis): Application for a declara-
tion that, by failing to make available to the Commission the
sum of ITL 1 484 936 000 000 by way of own resources
within the period laid down by Articles 9 and 10 of Council                   In Case C-404/00, Commission of the European Communities
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000                          (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and S. Rating) v Kingdom of Spain
implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of                     (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that,
the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), and                     by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures
refusing to pay default interest owed on that amount pursuant                 necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2001/131/EC
to Article 11 of the same regulation, the Italian Republic has                of 26 October 1999 on the State aid implemented by Spain in
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of               favour of the publicly-owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22),
Regulation No 1150/2000 which, from 31 May 2000, repealed                     which declares that that aid was granted illegally and is there-
and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89                     fore incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of
of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom                      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth
on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989                      paragraph of Article 249 EC and under Articles 2 and 3 of
L 155, p. 1), identical in aim, the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    that decision, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.                      R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting as
A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and                          President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris,
A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:                 A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                              a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to make available to the Commission           1.    Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the
      of the European Communities the sum of ITL                                    measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2000/
      1 484 936 000 000 by way of own resources within the                          131/EC of 26 October 1999 on the State aid implemented by
      period laid down by Articles 9 and 10 of Council Regulation                   Spain in favour of the publicly-owned shipyards, which declares
      (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 imple-                              that that aid was granted unlawfully and is therefore incompa-
      menting Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the                      tible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
      Communities' own resources, and refusing to pay default interest              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;
      owed on that amount pursuant to Article 11 of the same
      regulation, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations   2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000
      which, from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council
      Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989                     (1) OJ C 28, 27.1.2001.
      implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of
      the Communities' own resources, identical in aim;


title: Case T-480/12: Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/52

         Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)
   (Case T-480/12)
   2013/C 26/105
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2012 in case R 2156/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Master’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9091612

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 8792475 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 3021086 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2117828 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2107118 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2428468 of the figurative mark ‘C’

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-3/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgische Staat (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 12(3)(a) — Annexe H — Reduced rate of VAT — Concept of admissions to a cinema — Individual cubicles for watching films on demand)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-3/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 12(3)(a) - Annexe H - Reduced rate of VAT - Concept of admissions to a cinema - Individual cubicles for watching films on demand)
   2010/C 134/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erotic Center BVBA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Annex H, Category 7 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)(now Annex III, No. 7 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate applicable to certain supplies of goods and services — Cinemas — Meaning — Individual cubicle for viewing films on demand

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of admissions to a cinema referred to in the first paragraph of Category 7 in Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the payment made by a customer so as to be able to watch on his own one or more films, or extracts from films, in private cubicles such as those in issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.