ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 2 November 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission

(Case C-554/11 P)

(2012/C 25/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(a) set aside the order of 21 September 2011 and refer the case back to the General Court, directing it to carry out a new assessment after delivery of the judgment in Case T-300/10; in the alternative, rule on the case itself;

(b) order the Commission to pay the costs which arose out of the interlocutory proceedings to which the order under appeal relates and the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is against the order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV, by which that Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on proceedings which the appellant and applicant at first instance had brought against a decision of the Commission in 2005. The original action was directed against the Commission’s refusal to grant the appellant full access to the file in respect of the contract LIEN 97-2011.

By the appeal the appellant criticises the order of the General Court on the grounds of incorrect application of the rules of procedure, in particular the inadequate coordination of the proceedings in Cases T-36/10 and T-141/05 RENV, by which its interests were, according to the appellant, seriously undermined. In addition, the General Court made an incorrect decision on costs to the appellant’s disadvantage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Société Geodis Calberson GE v FranceAgriMer

(Case C-623/11)

2012/C 39/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Geodis Calberson GE

Respondent: FranceAgriMer

Question referred

The proceedings are stayed … until the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have given its ruling on the question whether the provisions of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 (1) of 18 January 1999 are to be interpreted as conferring on the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated for receiving the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to Russia makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular, actions for compensation for damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL v Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

(Case C-591/11)

2012/C 39/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL

Other parties: Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

(1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/8

Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-682/11 P)

2012/C 65/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision by which the action was dismissed as inadmissible for lack of direct concern.

The appellant maintains that the regulation at issue (1) (‘the Regulation’) is of direct concern to the appellant. This follows from the fact that even at the time of the Regulation’s adoption and before its entry into force, it was clear that the Member States concerned would, in practice, exercise the discretion conferred on them in the Regulation in only one way. The possibility that the Member States concerned or their respective authorities would decide otherwise is thus purely theoretical.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).
3.

The Decision relates to the amendment of Annex II to the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons. Annex II to the Agreement is exclusively concerned with the coordination, as between the EU and Switzerland, of social security systems. The purpose of the amendments to Annex II that the disputed Decision would introduce is to reflect changes in the EU machinery of social security coordination. One effect of the contemplated changes to Annex II would be to extend to Swiss nationals who are neither themselves economically active nor members of the family of a person who is so active (‘non-actives’), rights that they do not derive from the present Annex II regime.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2011 — Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia and Others v Comune di Pavia

(Case C-564/11)

2012/C 73/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Brescia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Como, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Cremona, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecco, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lodi, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Milano, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pavia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Varese

Defendant: Comune di Pavia

Question referred

Does Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts and, in particular, Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 thereof and Categories 8 and 12 of Annex II thereto, preclude national legislation under which it is possible for written agreements to be entered into by two awarding authorities for scientific and technical consulting studies and services for the drafting of the measures making up the municipal town and country planning programme, as defined by the national and regional legislation for the sector, the financial consideration for which does not, by definition, represent true remuneration, in so far as the administrative authority responsible for carrying out this task may act as an economic operator?

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 December 2011 — S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

(Case C-627/11)

2012/C 65/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași

Defendant: Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

Question referred

Are Council Regulations No 1260/1999 (1) and No 1268/1999 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the business activity engaged in by the beneficiaries of the SAPARD funds granted in the period preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union must be conducted in compliance with the conditions for the grant of those funds, in accordance with the principle of the economic efficiency and profitability of the beneficiary, given also the specific circumstances relied upon, namely the natural disasters which occurred in the area?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre- accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87).
1.

May breaches of Article 101 TFEU committed by an undertaking be penalised by means of a fine in the case where the undertaking erred with regard to the lawfulness of its conduct and that error is unobjectionable? If Question 1 is answered in the negative: 1a. Is an error with regard to the lawfulness of conduct unobjectionable in the case where the undertaking acts in accordance with advice given by a legal adviser experienced in matters of competition law and the erroneous nature of the advice was neither obvious nor capable of being identified through the scrutiny which the undertaking could be expected to exercise? 1b. Is an error with regard to the lawfulness of conduct unobjectionable in the case where the undertaking has expectations as to the correctness of a decision taken by a national competition authority which examined the conduct under review solely on the basis of national competition law and found it to be permissible?
3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative or question 2 is answered in the negative: (a) Is there no use of a registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1) within the meaning of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC (aa) if the trade mark proprietor uses the form of a sign which differs only in elements from the form in which it (Trade Mark 1) and a further trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor are registered but the differences do not alter the distinctive character of the trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2); (bb) if the trade mark proprietor uses two forms of sign, neither of which corresponds to the registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1), but one of the forms used (Form 1) is the same as another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor and the second form used by the trade mark proprietor (Form 2) differs in elements from both registered trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2), without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade marks, and if this form of sign (Form 2) displays greater similarity to the other trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor? (b) Is a court of a Member State permitted to apply a national provision (here the second sentence of Paragraph 26(3) of the Law on trade marks (MarkenG)) which conflicts with a provision of a directive (here Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC) in cases in which the facts of the case had already occurred prior to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in which indications of the incompatibility of the Member State’s legislation with the provision of the directive became apparent for the first time (the judgment of 13 September 2007 in Case C-234/06 Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM (BAINBRIDGE) [2007] ECR I-7333) if the national court values the reliance of a party to the court proceedings on the validity of his position, secured under constitutional law, more highly than the interest in the implementation of a provision of the directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/14

Appeal brought on 30 November 2011 by ara AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2011 in Case T-174/10 ara v OHIM

(Case C-611/11 P)

2012/C 133/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: ara AG (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allrounder SARL

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 September 2011 in Case T-174/10;

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1);

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the intervener at first instance to pay the entirety of the costs in the two instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant alleges infringement by the General Court of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (1)

In that connection, the appellant alleges, first, breach of the obligation to state reasons by the General Court in that it failed, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, to provide sufficient reasons with regard to the criteria of the relevant public, the comparison of the marks and the likelihood of confusion. Thus, the General Court erred in finding that the public in question consists of average consumers displaying an average level of attention when the goods concerned are purchased despite the fact that it had been established, initially, that the consumer will rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks. Furthermore, the General Court erred in finding, when comparing the marks, that the presence of the two triangular motifs dominated the impression conveyed to the public by the mark in dispute. Consequently, the General Court overstated one or more components of the mark.

In addition, the appellant submits that the General Court breached the obligation to state reasons to the extent that it did not refer to the documents submitted by the intervener in connection with ascertaining whether there was a likelihood of confusion.

Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court underestimated the importance of the principle that the competent authority has a duty to examine relevant facts of its own motion.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/9

Appeal brought on 5 January 2012 by Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union

(Case C-10/12 P)

2012/C 65/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG (represented by: A. Willems, avocat, S. De Knop, advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgement of the General Court of 25 October 2011 insofar as the General Court did not annul the Contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court;

— adopt a definitive ruling and annul the Contested Regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court;

— order any intervener(s) to pay the costs of the Appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court:

— Erred in law in holding that the Institutions’ violations of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation (1) were insufficient to annul the Contested Regulation (2);

— Erred in law in holding that the Institutions were not required to conduct a collective analysis of the injurious effects caused by factors other than the dumped imports;

— Erred in ordering the Appellants to pay the costs of the Council and of Euroalliages.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 56, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

OJ L 55, p. 6
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), lodged on 23 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski and Andrzej Kozak

(Case C-31/12)

2012/C 165/12

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem

Parties to the main proceedings

Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak

Question referred

Must Article 1.11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1) be interpreted as meaning that the technical regulations, the draft of which must be communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 8(1) of that directive, also include a legislative provision which defines the statutory concepts and prohibitions which are described and set out in Article 29 of the Ustawa z dnia 19 listopada 2009 roku o grach hazardowych (Polish Law of 19 November 2009 on games of chance) (Dz. U. No 201, position 1540, as amended)?

(1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.
2.

Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as in principle also precluding national legislation, such as Article 38(2) of Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted by Law No 248/2006, under which ‘Article 1(287) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004 shall be replaced by the following: “287. By measures of the Ministry of Economic and Financial Affairs — Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies — the new rules for distributing gambling on events other than horse racing shall be laid down in accordance with the following criteria: … (l) laying down the procedures for safeguarding licensees for the collection of bets at fixed odds on events other than horse racing governed by the regulations contained in Decree No 111 of 1 March 2006 of the Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs.”’ The question whether Article 38(2) is compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC relates, in particular, to the extent to which under Article 38(2) there is a general tendency to protect licences issued before the legal framework was amended and a number of restrictions and measures are provided for which could ultimately ensure de facto the maintenance of pre-existing commercial positions, as evidenced, for example, by the obligations to open new sales points at a distance from those already authorised. The question further relates to the general interpretation placed on Article 38(2) by the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies by inserting in licensing agreements a clause relating to lapse of the licence where analogous cross-border activities are engaged in directly or indirectly.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/10

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-122/12 P)

2012/C 165/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.

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

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