Request for a Preliminary Ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
C 314/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 29.8.2016 Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO (Case C-611/15 P) (2016/C 314/11) Language of the case: Spanish Parties Appellant: L’Oréal SA (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers) Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Cosmética Cabinas, S.L. By order of 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered L’Oréal SA to bear its own costs. Appeal brought on 1 December 2015 by Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-720/13: Gat Microencapsulation v EUIPO (Case C-639/15 P) (2016/C 314/12) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma, Agent, M. C. March Cabrelles, abogada) Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) By order of 26 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible. Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Comune di Balzola and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Case C-275/16) (2016/C 314/13) Language of the case: Italian Referring court Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, Comune di Cereseto, Comune di Cerrina, Comune di Frassineto Po, Comune di Gabiano, Comune di Limone Piemonte, Comune di Mombello Monferrato, Comune di Morano Sul Po, Comune di Odalengo Piccolo, Comune di Pietraporzio, Comune di Piovà Massaia, Comune di Pontestura, Comune di Ponzano, Comune di Sala Monferrato, Comune di Serralunga di Crea, Comune di Solonghello, Comune di Villamiroglio, Comune di Montemagno, Comune di Scurzolengo, Comune di Alfiano Natta, Comune di Moncalvo, Comune di Cerro Tanaro, Comune di Tonco, Comune di Castagnole Monferrato, Comune di Casorzo, Comune di Calliano, Comune di Robella, Comune di Grana, Comune di Rocchetta Tanaro, Comune di Odalengo Grande, Comune di Coniolo, Comune di Ozzano Monferrato, Comune di Demonte, Comune di Entracque, Comune di Sambuco, Comune di Roccasparvera, Comune di Argentera, Comune di Gaiola, Comune di Valdieri, Anci Piemonte Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni 29.8.2016 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/9 Question referred On a correct interpretation of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) are Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 194/2014 compatible with that directive, in the following respects: (a) Directive 97/67/EC, as amended and supplemented, concerning common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service imposes an obligation on Member States to provide a universal postal service and, in that connection, it provides that postal items must be collected and delivered to the home address of the addressee ‘not less than five working days a week’; (b) the same Community directive makes provision for possible derogations, by the national regulatory authorities, only ‘in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional’; (c) Italian domestic legislation (Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 190/2014 — referred to as the ‘2015 Stability Law’), on the other hand, requires the national regulatory authority to allow the aforementioned derogation, within specified time limits, whenever the operator of the service so requests, relying on the ‘existence of particular situations of an infrastructural or geographical nature in territorial areas with a population density of less than 200 inhabitants per square kilometre’, even where such situations are not of an exceptional nature and affect a considerable proportion of the national population (up to one-quarter of the population and therefore — in the case of areas with low population densities — up to a far wider proportion of national territory)? (1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14). Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 May 2016 — RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. v Heta Asset Resolution AG (Case C-282/16) (2016/C 314/14) Language of the case: German Referring court Handelsgericht Wien Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. Defendant: Heta Asset Resolution AG Questions referred 1. Is Article 2(1)(2) and (23) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms in conjunction with Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, under which a ‘credit institution’ is an undertaking the business of which is to take deposits and/or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account (‘CRR institution’), to be interpreted to the effect that a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation also falls within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU? 2. In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (as amended by Article 117(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU) to be interpreted to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is fully effective as against persons resident in other Member States — also having regard to Article 17(1) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights — without any further formalities (despite the negative answer to Question 1)?.