title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2002 in Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01: Robert Bosch GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Kit Pro and Kit Super Pro — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/31
the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being ELS                     and Designs) of 31 October 2000 (Joined Cases R 728/1999-
Educational Services, Inc., established in Culver City, California          2 and R 792/1999-2), relating to opposition proceedings
(United States): Action brought against the decision of the                 between Hukla Germany SA and Matratzen Concord GmbH,
Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October                     of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
2000 (Case R 074/2000-3), the Court of First Instance (Fourth               D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and                  judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
it:                                                                         1.     Dismisses the application;
1.     Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2000 (Case R 074/2000-
       3) in so far as it relates to the analysis of the likelihood of
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
       confusion between the conflicting marks;
2.     For the rest, dismisses the application;
3.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and pay two thirds
       of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant shall bear
       one third of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 November 2002
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01: Robert Bosch GmbH
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                         of 23 October 2002
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Kit Pro and Kit Super Pro —
in Case T-6/01: Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for                         Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/58)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Relative grounds
for refusal — Similarity between two trade marks —
Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                        (Language of the case: German)
(EC) No 40/94 — Application for a figurative Community
trade mark containing the word ‘Matratzen’ — Earlier word
                     trade mark MATRATZEN)
                            (2003/C 19/57)                                  In Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01, Robert Bosch GmbH,
                                                                            established in Stuttgart (Germany), represented by S. Völker,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
                     (Language of the case: German)                         mission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                            Actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of
                                                                            Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                            (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 (Cases R 124/
In Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen                  2000-1 and R 123/2000-1) on the registration of Kit Pro and
Concord AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented                   Kit Super Pro respectively as Community trade marks, the
by W.-W. Wodrich, avocat, v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:                   M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
A. von Mühlendahl, G. Schneider and E. Joly): Action brought                tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                   on 20 November 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/32                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                       of 23 October 2002
                                                                            in Case T-104/01: Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Har-
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                                 monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Opposition — Earlier figurative
                                                                            mark containing the term ‘miss fifties’ — Application for
                                                                            Community word mark ‘Fifties’ — Relative ground for
                                                                            refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 19/60)
                       of 26 November 2002                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                            In Case T-104/01, Claudia Oberhauser, established in Munich
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Germany), represented by M. Graf, lawyer, v Office for
                                                                            Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
(Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission’s adminis-                    Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the
trative structures — Redeployment — Reasons — Interest                      proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for
       of the service — Misuse of power — Duty of care)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) being Petit Liberto, SA, established in Vidreres (Spain):
                                                                            Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber
                           (2003/C 19/59)                                   Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February
                                                                            2001 (Case R 757/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                                                                            P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
                                                                            it:
In Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren (Belgium),                1.     Dismisses the application;
represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
munities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and J. Waldron) —
application, in the first place, for annulment of the Commission
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
decision transferring the applicant from the ‘Economic Infor-
mation, Publications and Documentation’ Unit, which first
became the ‘Information: EURO, EMU’ Unit and subsequently
became Unit 4 ‘Communications Policy in regard to Monetary
Union’, to the ‘General Coordination, Human Resources and
Administration’ Unit, which became Unit 1 ‘Human Resources
Coordination; Information and Administration’, within the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
‘Economic and Financial Affairs’ Directorate-General, and,
second, for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                             of 7 November 2002
(Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
dent, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,                   in Case T-199/01: G v Commission of the European
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                             Communities ( 1)
26 November 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Officials — Social security — Refusal to reimburse medical
                                                                                expenses — Inefficacious treatment)
1.     The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2003/C 19/61)
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.08.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-199/01: G, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by


title: Case F-126/14: Action brought on 30 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission and EEAS

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/50

         Action brought on 30 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission and EEAS
   (Case F-126/14)
   (2015/C 034/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Tallent, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision taken by the European External Action Service authority empowered to conclude contracts, confirming a reimbursement ceiling as regards the applicant’s removal costs from Montenegro to his country of origin.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment dated 23 July 2014 notified on 1 August 2014;

               —

               declare that ZZ is to be reimbursed the actual costs incurred by him in respect of his removal of EUR 17  940;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that ZZ is to be reimbursed his removal costs up to an amount of EUR 7  960;

               —

               declare that all the costs of the proceedings are to be borne by the European External Action Service.


title: Case C-110/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil d'État, judicial section, by judgment of that court of 29 January 2001 in the case of Malika Tennah-Durez against the Conseil National de l'Ordre des Médecins

text:
C 118/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.4.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil                         Removal from the register of Case C-343/99 (1)
d’État, judicial section, by judgment of that court of
29 January 2001 in the case of Malika Tennah-Durez
   against the Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins                                          (2001/C 118/37)
                                                                          By order of 25 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                          (Case C-110/01)                                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                          the register of Case C-343/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
                          (2001/C 118/36)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the French Conseil
d’État (Council of State), judicial section, of 29 January 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 9 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Malika Tennah-Durez against
the Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins (National Council
of the Medical Association) on the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 23(2) of Council Directive                   Removal from the register of Case C-157/98 (1)
      93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) relating to the period of
      medical training that a doctor who is a national of a
                                                                                (2001/C 118/38)
      Member State must have completed, comprising at least
      a six-year course or 5 500 hours of theoretical and
      practical instruction given in a university or under the            By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
      supervision of a university, to be understood as meaning            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
      training completed, in its entirety, only in a university of        the register of Case C-157/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
      a Member State of the Community or under the super-                 Commission of the European Communities.
      vision of such a university, or do they allow all or part of
      any training received in a third country to be taken into
      account?
                                                                          (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
2.    Are the national authorities bound by the certificate
      provided, pursuant to Article 9(5) of the directive, by the
      competent authorities of the Member State in which the
      diploma submitted by the person concerned was awarded,
      which states that the diploma is treated as one of the
      qualifications or designations set out in Article 3, 5 or 7
      of the directive and was awarded following training in
      accordance with the provisions of Title III thereof, or may
      they make their own assessment of the said certificate                     Removal from the register of Case C-410/99 (1)
      in the light of, in particular, the minimum training
      requirements prescribed by the directive and required by
      national legislation in order, in some circumstances, to                                   (2001/C 118/39)
      consider whether, despite the terms of the certificate so
      issued, the training received by the person concerned
      meets the requirements of the directive?                            By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                          the register of Case C-410/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling from Kantongerecht te Groningen): Kamer van
(1) Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free    Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Groningen v Challenger Trad-
    movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their               ing Company Ltd.
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
    (OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1).
                                                                          (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.


               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-93/04 (1)

   (2005/C 6/61)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 6 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-93/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)   OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Profex Electronic Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-190/97)

text:
C 318/18             I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Crown Europe                         Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Profex Electronic
GmbH against            the    Commission   of the European            Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH against the Commission of
                             Communities                                                the European Communities
                           (Case T-l 87/97)                                                   ( Case T-190/97)
                            ( 97/C 318/35 )                                                     ( 97/C 318/36 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                        (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
by Crown Europe GmbH, whose registered office is at                    Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997
Gelsenkirchen,          represented      by   Dietrich      Ehle,      by Profex Electronic Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, whose
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in                  registered office is at Tiefenbach, represented by Gregor
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue                       Sobotta, Rechtsanwalt, Muhlheim an der Ruhr.
Michel Welter, Luxembourg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul       Commission       Decision  REM     20/96      of
—i annul       Commission         Decision  REM       19/96    of
                                                                            19 February 1997, holding the remission of import
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment                 duties in a certain case on the application of Germany
     of DM 238 352,97,                                                     to be unjustified,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       — order the Commission to take a decision allowing the
                                                                           application for remission of the duties,
Pleas, in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs,
For the factual background and the legal arguments of the
applicant, which imported television sets from Turkey
between January 1991 and January 1994, and which                       — declare the judgment provisionally enforceable, if
challenges a Commission Decision of 19 February 1997                       necessary on provision of security.
addressed to Germany to the effect that the remission of
import duties in the applicant's case would be unjustified,
reference is made to the explanatory statements in Case                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
T-l 86/97 0 ).
In addition to the legal arguments in that case, the                   For the factual background and the legal arguments of
applicant alleges an infringement in this case of the                  the applicant, which imported colour television sets
Commission's decision-making procedure, in that, first,                from Turkey between February and September 1992, and
the Commission did not have the applicant's full                       challenges a Commission Decision addressed to Germany
                                                                       to the effect that the remission of import duties in its case
application before it at the time it made its decision, and,
secondly, it is not clear whether the Commission also took             would be unjustified, reference is made to the explanatory
                                                                       statements in Cases T-186/97 and T-187/97 (');
its decision on the basis of Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation
( EEC ) No 1697/79 .
                                                                       In addition to the legal arguments in those cases, the
The applicant further argues that the Commission                       applicant maintains that it is not apparent on what
nevertheless supported its Decision both on the basis of               legal basis the Commission's officials carried out their
that provision and on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation            investigations in Turkey. If any facts were obtained at all
( EEC) No 1430/79 . With regard to Article 5 (2 ) of                   by means of those investigations, they were obtained in an
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79, the Commission wrongly                  unlawful manner and, in accordance with the general
determined that the Turkish exporter of the colour                     principle of the rule of law, should not therefore have
television sets had misled or even deceived the Turkish                been used.
customs authorities, and that a provision for the payment
of proportionate duty was discernibly applicable to the
parties concerned.                                                     The applicant submits, moreover, that the television sets
                                                                       were probably produced in the context of inward
                                                                       processing, where the most usual procedure would be
(*) See previous case .
                                                                       for the local customs authorities not to levy any
                                                                       compensatory charges at all . Even if the television sets
                                                                       were not produced in that context, the charges should
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 19
have been remitted in accordance with the principle                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997
of the protection of legitimate expectations, laid down                   by Dr Seufert GmbH, whose registered office is at
in particular in Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                    Karlsruhe, represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt,
No 1697/97.                                                               Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter,
(') See previous cases.                                                   Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision REM 21 /96 of 25 March
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Horten AG against                            1997, refusing the remission of a payment of
                                                                               DM 126 828,26 ,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-191/97)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                             ( 97IC 318/37)
                (Language of the case: German)                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                          The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         applicant, whose predecessor imported colour television
Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997                      sets from Turkey in 1992 and 1993 , and which challenges
by Horten AG, whose registered office is at Diisseldorf,                  a Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                 effect that the remission of import duties in its case would
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   be unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and
Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, Luxembourg.                             T-l 87/97 ( M.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal .
— annul        Commission          Decision    REM       14/96   of
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment
     of DM 123 809,12,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Bo Forvass against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-203/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/39 )
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant, which imported television sets from Turkey                                     (Language of the case: French)
between October 1992 and January 1993 and challenges a
Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the effect
that the remission of import duties in its case would be                  An action against the Commission of the European
unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
T-187/97 (').                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1997 by
                                                                          Bo Forvass, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
                                                                          Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson sari, 30
                                                                          rue de Cessange .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Dr Seufert GmbH                        — rule that the applicant is entitled to be classified in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                          grade A 4, step 4, with effect from the date of his
                         ( Case T-192/97)                                      entry into service, namely 1 February 1996,
                            ( 97/C 318/38 )
                                                                         — consequently, annul the Commission's decision of
                (Language of the case: German)                                 19 March 1997 expressly rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-137/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-137/13)
   2013/C 171/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is legally required only when a provision of European Union law or a provision of national law compatible with European Union law directly requires, in respect of the foodstuff in which the substances referred to are to be incorporated, that the substances referred to be added or at least lays down a minimum content in respect of the substances referred to, which should be incorporated?

               2.

               Should the first question be answered in the negative: Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to be understood as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is also legally required where the marketing of a foodstuff as a food supplement or bearing health claims would, without the addition of at least one of the substances referred to, tend to mislead the consumer because the foodstuff cannot, in the absence of one of the substances referred to in sufficient strength, fulfil its stated purpose as a foodstuff or its stated purpose as expressed by the health claim?

               3.

               Should the first question be answered in the negative: Is Article 27(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to be understood as meaning that the use of the substances referred to is also legally required where a specific health claim may be used only for foodstuffs which contain a certain, so-called significant, amount of at least one of the substances referred to?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).


title: Case C-405/02: Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 323/28               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
      provided evidence in that respect, so much so that in             nition of diplomas obtained in other Member States, as
      their reply to the reasoned opinion they make no mention          provided by those two directives.
      whatever of that matter.
                                                                        The arrangements for assimilation under decrees, which do
( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                              not take account of Directives 89/48 and 92/51, rely only on
( 2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.
( 3) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.
                                                                        the examination of diplomas submitted by candidates who are
                                                                        holders of such diplomas and make no provision for the taking
                                                                        into account of any experience acquired in the course of
                                                                        pursuing the profession to make up for any difference with
                                                                        respect to duration or content of training leading to the award
                                                                        of such diplomas. However, Member States are obliged to take
                                                                        into account any professional experience which candidates
Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Com-                          may possess for the purposes of assimilating a diploma
mission of the European Communities against the French                  obtained in another Member State and access to the regulated
                             Republic                                   profession in question.
                          (Case C-402/02)
                                                                        (1 ) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                             system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                          (2002/C 323/41)
                                                                             on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                             three years’ duration (OJ 1988 L 19, p. 16) .
                                                                        (2 ) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 system for the recognition of professional education and training
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 Novem-                    to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) .
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia and D. Martin, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force, in order to         Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Com-
      grant access to the profession of teacher specialising in         mission of the European Communities against the United
      the hospital public service or, on the other hand, in the                                         Kingdom
      national public service, a procedure for the mutual
      recognition of diplomas and by retaining national legis-
      lation and practice of the committee for the assimilation                                     (Case C-405/02)
      of diplomas which takes no account of the professional
      experience of migrant workers, the French Republic has                                        (2002/C 323/42)
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 89/48/
      EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC ( 2) and Article 39 EC Treaty; and
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 Novem-
                                                                        ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         represented by Maria Patakia and Karen Banks, acting as
                                                                        agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
A profession is a regulated profession in a Member State
within the meaning of Directives 89/48 and 92/51 where it is
authorised in that Member State and access thereto or the               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
pursuit thereof is reserved to persons who, directly or
indirectly, meet the statutory conditions governing the rules of        (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
that profession. The fact that access to a similar profession in               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the private or associative sector is not subject to the same                   Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
condition is irrelevant in that regard. Likewise, the statement                the Council of 7 June 1999 on the establishment of a
made by the French authorities in their reply to the reasoned                  mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect
opinion that a profession is not ‘regulated’ unless it is subjected            of the professional activities covered by the Directives on
to a condition regarding the conferment of a diploma arising                   liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-
from a legislative provision of general application is erroneous               plementing the general systems for the recognition of
in law. Since Directives 89/48 and 92/51 are applicable                        qualifications ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
inasmuch as they concern access to the regulated profession                    cate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has
of teachers specialising in the hospital public service and in                 failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;
the national civil service, it is incumbent on the French
authorities to provide for a procedure for the mutual recog-            (2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs of this action.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 323/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case C-366/01 ( 1)
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to                              (2002/C 323/44)
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period        By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
expired on 31 July 2001 without the United Kingdom having            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive        register of Case C-366/01: Commission of the European
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                    Communities v Ireland.
( 1) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-404/95 ( 1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-370/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 323/43)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/45)
By order of 18 October 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-404/95: Federal Republic of
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-370/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 95 of 30.03.1996.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-26/01: Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
24.2.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/11
Action brought on 16 January 2001 by the Commission                    Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
                         lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-26/01)
                          (Case C-20/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/19)
                         (2001/C 61/18)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the Commission of
brought before the Court of Justice on 16 January 2001 by the          the European Communities, represented by G. Berscheid,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Josef Christian Schieferer, of the Legal Service of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European           the Court should:
Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
                                                                             trative measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the
(1) declare that, by failing to invite tenders for the award of              marketing of propagating material of ornamental
      the contract for the treatment of waste water in the                   plants (1), the French Republic has failed to comply with
      Municipality of Bockhorn and to arrange for notice of                  its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;
      the results of the procedure for the award of the contract
      to be published in the S Series of the Official Journal of
      the European Communities, the Federal Republic of                —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      Germany has failed to comply with its obligations under
      Article 8 in conjunction with Article 15(2) and Article
      16(1) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992         Pleas in law and main arguments
      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
      of public service contracts;
                                                                       The mandatory nature of the provisions of Articles 10 and
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                              249 EC is such as to oblige Member States to adopt the
                                                                       measures necessary in order to transpose directives which are
                                                                       addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the
                                                                       expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        fixed in Article 19 of the directive expired on 1 July 1999.
The German Government concedes that a Community-wide
invitation to tender for the award of the contract for the             (1) OJ L 226 of 13.8.1998, p. 16.
treatment of waste water in the Municipality of Bockhorn
should have been issued in accordance with the provisions
of Directive 92/50/EEC; notwithstanding that concession,
however, and despite the fact that an instruction was issued by
the Government of the Land requiring subordinate authorities
to ensure in a suitable manner that the contracting authorities
within that Land complied to the letter with the rules prescribed
by Community law for the award of contracts, the fact remains
that a definite infringement of the Treaty has been committed.         Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission
Moreover, the Municipality of Bockhorn has committed a                 of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
further infringement of EC law by maintaining the waste-water                                    of Luxembourg
contract and continuing to apply that contract in the same
way as before. Since the conduct contrary to the directive is
thus subsisting, it is undeniable that the defendant has failed                                  (Case C-27/01)
to take, within the time-limit laid down in the reasoned
opinion, all the national measures required in order to comply
                                                                                (2001/C 61/20)
with the directive.
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.                                               brought before the Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                       G. Berscheid, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg.


title: Case T-273/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Umbria Olii International (O·LIVE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark O·LIVE — Earlier Community and Spanish figurative and word marks Olive line — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Umbria Olii International (O·LIVE)
   (Case T-273/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark O·LIVE - Earlier Community and Spanish figurative and word marks Olive line - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Umbria Olii International Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2010 (Case R 4/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL and O. International Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2010 (Case R 4/2009-4) is annulled in so far as it concerns, first, all the goods covered by the trade mark application in Class 3, namely ‘bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices’, and, second, ‘hygiene and beauty care for humans and animals’ in Class 44 covered by the trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and Umbria Olii International Srl to bear three quarters of their own costs and to each pay three eighths of the costs incurred by Olive Line International, SL;

               4.

               Orders Olive Line International, SL to pay, in addition to one quarter of its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by OHIM and the intervener.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2004 in Case T-343/02: Roland Schintgen v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg — Elections to the Luxembourg Staff Committee — Electoral system — Principles of fairness and democracy)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 April 2004
   in Case T-343/02: Roland Schintgen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg - Elections to the Luxembourg Staff Committee - Electoral system - Principles of fairness and democracy)
   (2004/C 118/82)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-343/02: Roland Schintgen, a Commission official residing in Keispelt (Luxembourg), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris) – application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority, dated 16 July 2002 and notified to the applicant on 6 August 2002, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 28 February 2002, by which, in essence, he applied for annulment of the elections to the local staff committee of the Commission in Luxembourg which took place in November 2001 and of the appointment of those elected to that committee and the Commission's failure to annul those elections – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, and M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; D. Christensen (Administrator), Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-430/00 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2000 by Anton Dürbeck GmbH against the judgment delivered on 19 December 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between Anton Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic

text:
C 28/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.1.2001
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Appeal brought on 21 November 2000 by Anton Dürbeck
                                                                           GmbH against the judgment delivered on 19 December
—     declare that, by failing to ensure that bathing waters in            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      the United Kingdom comply with the limit values set in               of the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between
      accordance with Article 3 of Directive 76/160/EC (1), the            Anton Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the
      United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under            European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      that Directive;                                                                       Spain and the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-430/00 P)
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/39)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between Anton
Article 4 of the Directive 76/160/CEE requires Member States               Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the European Com-
to have taken all necessary measures, within 10 years following            munities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the French
notification of the Directive, to ensure that the quality of               Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
bathing water conforms to the limit values set out in the                  European Communities on 21 November 2000 by Anton
Annex.                                                                     Dürbeck GmbH, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                           Berrenrather Straße 313, D-50937 Köln.
The Commission notes that, despite efforts to improve com-                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
pliance, the United Kingdom is continuing to fail to meet the
                                                                           1.    Set aside the contested judgment;
requirements of the directive. The Commission must conclude,
therefore, that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its                2.    Annul the contested decision of the Commission of
obligations in terms of the Directive.                                           10 July 1997 relating to the case of hardship;
                                                                           3.    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
    the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1).                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance erred in not undertaking
                                                                                a critical appraisal of the applicant’s submissions on
                                                                                infringement of the principle of equivalence. The defend-
                                                                                ant had first referred to the ‘interest in the equal treatment
                                                                                of all traders’ in its defence. The applicant was entitled to
                                                                                state its position on this not solely for the purpose of
                                                                                refuting the defendant’s plea.
                                                                           —     Owing to an incorrect appreciation of the contract
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                                between the applicant and Consultban, the Court of First
di Genova by order of that court of 11 November 2000
                                                                                Instance concluded that the Commission had correctly
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                                                                                established the amount of the compensation to which the
                                                                                applicant was entitled.
                           (Case C-429/00)
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance erred in approving the
                                                                                Commission’s refusal to take the licences granted in order
                            (2001/C 28/38)                                       to compensate losses in cases of hardship into account
                                                                                for the purpose of determining future reference quantities.
                                                                                The Commission was not entitled to adopt the approach
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           of providing compensation by allocating licences in cases
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace                             of hardship if that approach meant that it could not
(District Court), Genoa, of 20 November 2000, received at the                    take those licences into account for the purpose of
Court Registry on 11 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                     determining reference quantities for future years. Once it
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on                    adopted that approach, however, the effect of the binding
questions which are in substance identical to those referred in                  rule in Article 19 of Regulation No 404/93 was such that
Case C-388/00 (1).                                                               the Commission could not then refuse to take those
                                                                                licences into account for the purpose of determining
                                                                                reference quantities for future years if, owing to further
(1) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                          developments in the organisation of the market in
                                                                                bananas, the applicant received excessive compensation
                                                                                for its loss.


title: Case T-393/15: Action brought on 13 July 2015 — Università del Salento v Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/54

         Action brought on 13 July 2015 — Università del Salento v Commission
   (Case T-393/15)
   (2015/C 311/59)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Università del Salento (Lecce, Italy) (represented by F. Vetrò, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested measures, and consequently direct the payment of all amounts owing to the Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione dell’Università del Salento (Department of Innovative Engineering of the University of Salento) in relation to the contract entitled ‘Support for training of career researchers’‘Grant Agreement No 6102350, Explaining the nature of technological innovation in Chinese enterprises’, with all legal consequences, including as regards the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the measure of the European Commission, DG Budget, Budget Implementation (General Budget and EDFs) Recovery of loans, of 4 May 2015, Ref. N. D/CA — B.2 — 005,817, and the debit note attached thereto. That measure offset the amount receivable by the Department of Innovative Engineering of the University of Salento from the Commission, for the performance of a ‘Support for training career of researchers”, Grant Agreement n. 6102350, Explaining the nature of technological innovation in Chinese enterprises’, against a debt which, according to the Commission, the Dipartimento di Scienze giuridiche (Department of Legal Science) of the University of Salento owed to the Commission in relation to the contract entitled ‘Agreement JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1540 — Judicial Training and Research on EU crimes against environment and maritime pollution.’
   In support of its application, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, abuse of power, misuse of power due to an erroneous assumption, failure to conduct a proper investigation, error of fact and infringement and misapplication of Article 81 of the Financial Regulation of the European Union.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the offsetting is implemented in contradiction of the European rules relating to the certainty of the amount, whether that amount is liquid and whether it is payable. In the present case, the alleged debt is contested by the debtor, as is clear from the correspondence attached. The Commission’s decision is unilateral and, as such, infringes the principle of equality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of the principle of effectiveness of Community law, infringement and misapplication of the principle of sound financial management and misuse of power due to failure to conduct a proper investigation.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the amounts allocated for the research project of the Department of Innovative Engineering had to be used only to carry out the research for which they had been allocated and could not be the offset against debt relating to activities other than those established by the aforementioned research project, lest it infringe the principle of effectiveness. The contested measures infringe the principle of sound financial management since the Commission, by implementing the offset, did not use the money granted in accordance with its intended purpose.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 296 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the contested act did comply with the obligation to state reasons in the provision referred to above, since it fails to state the source, the reasons, or the legal grounds for the decision to offset the sums owed to the Department of Innovative Engineering against those owed to the Department of Legal Science.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte v. European Parliament (Officials - Revocation of a decision recognizing an occupational disease - Subsequent adoption of a decision refusing to recognize the occupational disease - Annulment)

text:
No C 54/16          | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 3 . 95
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 29 March 1993                 4. orders the parties in Case T-62/92 to bear their own
     reducing the assistance initially granted to the applicant            costs.
     by the ESF;
                                                                     í 1 ) OJ No C 28 , 5 . 2 . 1992 and OJ No C 258 , 7. 10 . 1992 .
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(!) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 January 1995
                                                                     on Case T-527/93 : O v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( a )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             (Officials   — Action seeking annulment — Decision
                      of 26 January 1995                             suspendingpayment ofremuneration pursuant to Article 60
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations)
in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte v.
                   European Parliament ( J )                                                      ( 95/C 54/29 )
 (Officials — Revocation of a decision recognizing an
occupational disease — Subsequent adoption of a decision                             (Language of the case: French)
refusing to recognize the occupational disease —
                           Annulment)                                In Case T-527/93 : O, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, represented by Jean-Francois
                          ( 95/C 54/28 )
                                                                     Neven, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue
                (Language of the case: French)                       d'Eich, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Sean van Raepenbusch and Gianluigi Valsesia ) —
                                                                     application for the annulment of the Commission decision
In Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte, a              of 23 December 1992 ordering suspension, pursuant to
former official of the European Parliament residing at               Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, of payment of the
Strasbourg (France), represented by Edmond Lebrun and                applicant's remuneration with effect from 1 January 1993
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service      — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du            J.L. Cruz Vila^a, President, H. Kirschner and A.
Fort Rheinsheim. v. European Parliament (Agent: Frangois             Kalogeropoulos,           Judges;     J.     Palacio    Gonzalez,
Vainker) — application, first, for the annulment of the              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 1991 by              26 January 1995 , in which it:
which it retroactively revoked its decision of 24 January
1991 recognizing that the applicant was suffering from an
                                                                     1 . annuls the Commission decision of 23 December 1992
occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the
                                                                           ordering payment of the applicant's remuneration to be
Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
and for an order requiring the defendant institution to pay
                                                                           suspended with effect from 1 January 1993;
to him the compensation awarded thereby (Case T-90/91 )              2. orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
and, second, the annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 20 January 1992 by which it refused to
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 299, 5 . 11 . 1993 .
recognize that the applicant was suffering from an
occupational disease and for an order requiring the
defendant institution to pay to him the compensation
provided for in that regard ( Case T-62/92 ) — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.L. Cruz
Vilaga, President, and H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 January 1995 , in which it:                                                               of 26 January 1995
                                                                     in Case T-549/93 : D v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (*)
1 . dismisses the claims for relief made in the application in
     Case T-90/91 . The European Parliament is ordered to            (Officials — Disciplinaryproceedings — DisciplinaryBoard
     pay to the applicant compensation for non-material                            — Inquiry — Sexual harassment)
     damage in the sum of Bfrs 200 000;                                                             95/C 54/30)
2. dismisses the application in Case T-62/92;                                        (Language of the case: French)
3 . orders the European Parliament in Case T-90/91 to bear          In Case T-549/93 : D, a former official of the Commission of
     its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs of the       the European Communities, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
     applicant, who is consequently to bear three quarters of       the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     his own costs;                                                 at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,


title: Case C-548/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 24 October 2013 — Caixabank SA v Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez and Andrea Jiménez Jiménez

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 24 October 2013 — Caixabank SA v Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez and Andrea Jiménez Jiménez
   (Case C-548/13)
   2014/C 24/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixabank SA

      Defendants: Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez and Andrea Jiménez Jiménez

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-487/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN)
   (Case T-487/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 190/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Falcon Sporting Goods AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Weigell, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004 (Case R 176/2004-2) concerning the refusal to register the word mark ‘BIN LADIN’
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-190/16: Action brought on 27 April 2016 — Azarov v Council

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/30

         Action brought on 27 April 2016 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-190/16)
   (2016/C 222/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               terminate certain judicial measures, in particular:

                           —

                           questions to the Council;

                           —

                           the invitation to the Council to comment, in writing or orally, on certain aspects of the case;

                           —

                           requests for information to the Council and third parties, in particular to the Commission, EADS and Ukraine;

                           —

                           the invitation to submit documents or pieces of evidence in connection with the case;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of basic rights
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant asserts the infringement of the right to property and the infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. In addition, he criticises the excessiveness of the restrictive measures imposed.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Abuse of discretion
               In this regard, the applicant asserts inter alia that the Council misused its powers because, by imposing restrictive measures against the applicant, aims other than the consolidation and supporting of the rule of law and the respect of human rights in Ukraine were predominantly pursued.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of sound administration
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of the infringement of the right to impartial treatment, the infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and the infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment


title: Case T-527/14: Action brought on 15 July 2014  — Rosenich v OHIM

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/25

         Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Rosenich v OHIM
   (Case T-527/14)
   (2014/C 462/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Rosenich (Triesenberg, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and C. Eckhartt, lawyers)

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

      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 29 April 2014 in Case R 2063/2012-4;

               —

               annul the decision taken by the Director of the ‘Operations Support Department’ of OHIM of 7 September 2012, by which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of professional representatives before the defendant office was rejected, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2012;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 93 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the principle of freedom to provide services within the European Economic Area as provided for by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, since it confirms the rejection of his application to be included in the list of professional representatives before OHIM, despite the fact that, although he does not have his professional residence in a Member State of the European Union, he has it in a Member State of the European Economic Area.


title: Case T-187/11: Action brought on 30 March 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/29

         Action brought on 30 March 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council
   (Case T-187/11)
   2011/C 152/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France), Ines Lejri (Paris), Moncef Trabelsi (Paris), Selima Trabelsi (Paris) and Tarek Trabelsi (Paris) (represented by: A. Metzker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Council of the European Union of 4 February 2011;

               —

               remove the name ‘Mohamed TRABELSI’ from the list;

               —

               remove the name ‘INES LEJRI’ from the list;

               —

               remove the name of Mr Mohamed TRABELSI’s mother;

               —

               remove the address indicated in relation to Mr Mohamed TRABELSI;

               —

               grant Mr and Mrs TRABELSI a right to respond;

               —

               protect Mr Tarek TRABELSI given his disability;

               —

               instruct the Council of the European Union to re-examine its text and to comply with the principle of the presumption of innocence;

               —

               suspend the text adopted by the Council of the European Union;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr TRABELSI the sum of EUR 150 000 by way of damages for the harm suffered;

               —

               hold the European Union liable for the sum of EUR 25 000 by way of costs;

               —

               order the State to pay non-recoverable expenses — which it falls to the Court to set on an equitable basis — pursuant to Article L 761-1 of the Code de justice administrative (Administrative Justice Code).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law alleging a formal illegality of the contested decision by reason of a misuse of powers and of infringement of the principles of the presumption of innocence, of the legality of criminal offences and penalties, of non bis in idem and of the principle that both parties must be heard, as well as that of fair legal process.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging a substantive illegality of the contested decision by reason of an infringement of the right to property as well as of the principles of human dignity and equality, of an infringement of the freedoms of the TRABELSIs, of an interference with private life and of discrimination against a disabled child.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-285/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin): Suat Kol v. Land Berlin (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Council of Association - Free movement of workers - Legal employment - Periods of employment under a residence permit fraudulently obtained)

text:
No C 228/2                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
the interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Council             judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
Directive      89/552/EEC        of 3  October   1989    on   the      being Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                   Julian Currall ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed
regulation or administrative action in Member States                   of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities           the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10. 1989, p. 23 ), — the Court ( Sixth             Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
Chamber ) composed of: G. E Mancini, President of the                  General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the
Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn                Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                   which it :
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
which it ruled :                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
1 . Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                  2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
      3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
      provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                       O OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
      administrative action in Member State concerning the
      pursuit of television broadcasting activities is to be
      interpreted as meaning that a television broadcaster
       comes under the jurisdiction of the Member State in
      which it is established. The origin of programmes
       broadcast by the television broadcaster or their
       conformity with Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive are                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      irrelevant in determining the Member State having
      jurisdiction over such a broadcaster pursuant to                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
      Article 2 (1 ).                                                                           of 5 June 1997
                                                                       in Case C-285/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
2 . Article 2 (2) of Directive 89/552 is to be interpreted as          the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin): Suat Kol v. Land Ber
       meaning that a Member State may not oppose the                                                lin H
       retransmission on its territory of broadcasts of a
       television broadcaster over which another Member                 (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
      State has jurisdiction when those broadcasts do not              Council of Association — Free movement of workers —
       conform with the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of            Legal employment — Periods of employment under a
       the Directive.                                                             residence permit fraudulently obtained)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/04 )
( ] ) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           published in the European Court Reports)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 29 May 1997                              In Case C-285/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Oberverwaltungsgericht
in Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk v. Commission of                ( Higher Administrative Court) Berlin for a preliminary
                  the European Communities (')                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
 (Appeal — Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance                between Suat Kol and Land Berlin — on the interpretation
scheme for officials posted outside the Community —                    of Articles 6 ( 1 ) and 14 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of
       Conditions for reimbursement of medical expenses)                19 September 1980 on the development of the
                                                                       Association, adopted by the Council of Association
                            ( 97/C 228/03                              established by the Association Agreement between the
                                                                       European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court
                  (Language of the case: French)                       ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
                                                                       of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch, H.
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
            published in the European Court Reports)                   M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                       judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
In Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk ( represented by
Nicolas Lhoest ) — appeal against the judgment of the
 Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber) of 7 March 1996              Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September 1980
 in Case T-362/94 De Rijk v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC                 on the development of the Association, adopted by the
 11-365 ( English abstract at p. 117 ), seeking to have that            Council of Association established by the Association
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7. 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/3
Agreement between the European Economic Community                     broadcasting activities is to be interpreted as meaning that
and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish            a television broadcaster comes under the jurisdiction of
worker does not satisfy the condition of having been in               the Member States in which it is established. If a television
legal employment, within the meaning of that provision,               broadcaster is established in more than one Member State,
in the host Member State, where he has been employed                  the Member State having jurisdiction over it is the one in
there under a residence permit which was issued to him                whose territory the broadcaster has the centre of its
only as a result of fraudulent conduct in respect of which            activities, in particular where decisions concerning
he has been convicted.                                                programme policy are taken and the programmes to be
                                                                      broadcast are finally put together.
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                      o OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 5 June 1997
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
in Case C-56/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Raad van State van België): VT4 Ltd v. Vlaamse                    in     Case   C-107/96: Community of the European
                        Gemeenschaap (*)                                           Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
(Free movement of services — Television broadcasting —                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/156/EEC)
       Establishment — Evasion of domestic legislation)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/06 )
                           ( 97/C 228/05 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-107/96 : Commission of the European
In Case C-56/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright and Fernando
of the EC Treaty by the Raad van State van Belgie, for                Castillo de la Torre ) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                Perez de Ayala Becerril ) — application for a declaration
that court between VT4 Ltd and Vlaamse Gemeenschap                    that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or to notify
(third parties : Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Elektriciteit van het Westen ( Gaselwest) and Others,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vlaamse Uitgeversmaatschappij NV (VUM), Integan                       Council     Directive    91 /156/EEC     of  18  March    1991
Intercommunale CV and Others and Vlaamse Televisie                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78,
Maatschappij NV (VTM)) — on the interpretation of                     26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the                 fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                  Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty —the Court ( Fifth
regulation or administrative action in Member States                  Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities          President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.
 ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ), — the Court                  Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
composed of G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L.            Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)                judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it:
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate-General; C. O.
Lenz, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it rules :
                                                                       1 . declares that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                            within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                           Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991
3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in                    Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Member States concerning the pursuit of television                          under Article 2 (1 ) of that Directive;


title: Case C-21/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Abbott Laboratories v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ‘RESTORE’ — Refusal to register — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctiveness — Right to be heard — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 7 (1(b) and (c) and 75, second sentence — Equal treatment)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/7

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Abbott Laboratories v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-21/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ‘RESTORE’ - Refusal to register - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Right to be heard - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 7 (1(b) and (c) and 75, second sentence - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 108/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Abbott Laboratories (represented by: R. Niebel, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 in Case T-363/10 Abbott Laboratories v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1560/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark RESTORE as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctiveness of the word mark RESTORE

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Abbott Laboratories is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.