do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-191/16: Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v European Commission
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU act, limitation of legal proceedings, reimbursement of aid, working time








C_2016251EN.01003301.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/33





Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v European Commission
(Case T-191/16)
(2016/C 251/39)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


uphold the action;·










—


annul the contested act or decision of 16/02/2016 of the European Commission C(2016) 1080 ‘on the recovery of a total amount of EUR 109 415,20 plus interest due by LITO HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN SA’;










—


declare that the work time provided by the applicant’s staff for the performance of the project is what is stated as fact in the action;










—


take account of the applicant’s submissions if the Court holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 5 November 2009 are to be refunded










—


annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;










—


set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for ten years;










—


hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment, and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on six pleas in law:






1.


The first plea is based on an infringement of a rule of law by the European Commission and the impossibility of the European Commission adopting an act that is challengeable under Article 263 TFEU with respect to this case.










2.


The second plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the evidence submitted to it.










3.


The third plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the substantive arguments submitted to it during the whole procedure.










4.


The fourth plea is based on an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.










5.


The fifth plea is that the existence of a term of the contract which provides for only one way of proving the work done is abusive.










6.


The sixth plea is that the sum sought by the Commission’s claim is out of time.
Case C-229/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, deadline for payment, invoicing, pharmaceutical product, trading operation








C_2016287EN.01001301.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro
(Case C-229/16)
(2016/C 287/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P.

Defendant: João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

Questions referred







A.


Does Directive 2000/35/EC (1) … of 29 June 2000 apply, in the light of recital 13 of that directive, to the system for the payment of the State’s contributions to the cost of medicinal products dispensed to members of the SNS, established by Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and implemented by Order No 3- B/2007?










B.


In the event that it does apply, is it possible to conclude from Articles 5 and 6 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 the existence of an adhesion contract capable of falling within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) of the abovementioned directive in view of the fact that it is possible to adhere to or be released from that contract, depending on whether or not medicinal products are dispensed?










C.


Are Article 8 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and Articles 8 and 10 of Order No 3-B/2007, in making provision for monthly invoicing, compatible with Directive 2000/35 … (Article 3(1)(b)(i))?










D.


Is it possible to regard Article 10 of Order No 3-B/2007 as falling within the scope of [Article 3(2)] of the abovementioned directive, where it provides that the deadline for payment is to be the 10th day of the month following the one in which the invoice was received?






(1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).
Case T-520/15 P: Order of the General Court of 25 April 2016 — Filip Mikulik v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, dismissal, equal treatment, probationary period, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016222EN.01002201.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/22






Order of the General Court of 25 April 2016 — Filip Mikulik v Council
(Case T-520/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 222/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 25 June 2015 in Mikulik v Council (F 67/14, EU:F:2015:65), and seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


dismisses the appeal;










2.


orders Mr Filip Mikulik to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Case T-185/16: Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL)
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01003601.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/36





Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL)
(Case T-185/16)
(2016/C 243/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Make up for ever SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ — EU trade mark No 3 371 341

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3222/20014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


conclude that the semi-figurative EU trade mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ No 3 371 341 is valid for all of the goods and services covered by the filing;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


refer the case back to the EUIPO for further action, if necessary;










—


order the company L’Oréal to pay the costs arising from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the present proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-684/15: Order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid for restructuring, approximation of laws, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial aid, financial intervention, financial solvency, investment company, national implementing measure, sanction (EU)








C_2016279EN.01002502.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/25





Order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-684/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/37)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Case C-236/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, local tax, retail outlet, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2016260EN.01002401.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón
(Case C-236/16)
(2016/C 260/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Respondent: Diputacíon General de Aragón

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax stated to be levied on the environmental damage caused by the use of facilities and amenities attached to the business and trade carried on in retail establishments with large sales and parking areas for their customers, provided that the public sales area exceeds 500 m2, but that applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated outside or inside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) is not actually levied on traders who own several retail establishments, irrespective of their total public sales area, if none of them has a public sales area exceeding 500 m2, even if one or more of them exceeds that threshold but the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, while it does apply to traders who own a single retail establishment with a public sales area exceeding those thresholds; and (ii) is not levied on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation; and motor fuel, irrespective of their total public sales area?










2.


Must Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the fact that the IDMGAV is not actually levied on retail establishments with a public sales area not exceeding 500 m2 or on those exceeding that threshold provided that the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, or on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation, and motor fuel?
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 25 April 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792(1) Steel Abrasives — Rapporteur: Hungary
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, metallurgical industry, price agreement, sanction (EU), steel








C_2016366EN.01000501.xml










5.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/5





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 25 April 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792(1) Steel Abrasives
Rapporteur: Hungary
(2016/C 366/04)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertaking concerned by the draft decision has participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and EEA.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the addressee of the decision.










7.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-230/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, electronic commerce, luxury products industry, restriction on competition, retail trade








C_2016260EN.01002101.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH
(Case C-230/16)
(2016/C 260/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Do selective distribution systems that have as their aim the distribution of luxury goods and primarily serve to ensure a ‘luxury image’ for the goods constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Does it constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU if the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade are prohibited generally from engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales, irrespective of whether the manufacturer’s legitimate quality standards are contravened in the specific case?










3.


Is Article 4(b) of Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition of engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales that is imposed on the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade constitutes a restriction of the retailer’s customer group ‘by object’?










4.


Is Article 4(c) of Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition of engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales that is imposed on the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade constitutes a restriction of passive sales to end users ‘by object’?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 2010 L 102, p. 1.
Case C-234/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administracíon del Principado de Asturias
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, local tax, retail outlet, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2016260EN.01002201.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administracíon del Principado de Asturias
(Case C-234/16)
(2016/C 260/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Respondent: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administracíon del Principado de Asturias

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax levied on the operation of large retail establishments with a public display and sales area equal to or exceeding 4 000 m2 on account of their impact on the territory, environment and urban trading area of that region, but which applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated inside or outside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) does not affect traders who own several retail establishments, whether of an individual or collective nature, with a public display and sales area of less than 4 000 m2 irrespective of the total public display and sales area of all their establishments; and (ii) is not levied on large retail establishments of an individual nature, with a public display and sales area not exceeding 10 000 m2, which solely and exclusively pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies?










2.


Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the non-imposition of Asturian IGEC on retail establishments, individual or collective, with a public display and sales area of less than 4 000 m2 and individual large retail establishments, with a public display and sales area not exceeding 10 000 m2, which solely and exclusively pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies?
Case C-237/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón
Date: 2016-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, local tax, parking area, retail outlet, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2016260EN.01002501.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón
(Case C-237/16)
(2016/C 260/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Respondent: Diputacíon General de Aragón

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax stated to be levied on the environmental damage caused by the use of facilities and amenities attached to the business and trade carried on in retail establishments with large sales and parking areas for their customers, provided that the public sales area exceeds 500 m2, but that applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated outside or inside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) is not actually levied on traders who own several retail establishments, irrespective of their total public sales area, if none of them has a public sales area exceeding 500 m2, even if one or more of them exceeds that threshold but the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, while it does apply to traders who own a single retail establishment with a public sales area exceeding those thresholds; and (ii) is not levied on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation; and motor fuel, irrespective of their total public sales area?










2.


Must Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the fact that the IDMGAV is not actually levied on retail establishments with a public sales area not exceeding 500 m2 or on those exceeding that threshold provided that the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, or on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation, and motor fuel?