title: Case T-292/12 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Mega Brands v EUIPO — Diset (MAGNEXT) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark MAGNEXT — Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Mega Brands v EUIPO — Diset (MAGNEXT)
   (Case T-292/12 RENV) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by V. Melgar and subsequently by H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Diset and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-26/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — PT Musim Mas v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Adjustment — Article 2(9) and (10)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis — Single economic entity — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Equality and non-discrimination)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — PT Musim Mas v Council
   (Case T-26/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Adjustment - Article 2(9) and (10)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Single economic entity - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Equality and non-discrimination))
   (2015/C 262/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by D. Geradin, lawyer, and lastly by E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); and Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg) (represented initially by V. Akritidis, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor, and subsequently by V. Akritidis)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011 (OJ 2012 L 352, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case C-158/13: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/59

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-158/13) (1)

   2013/C 225/132
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Case T-407/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/43

         Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)
   (Case T-407/16)
   (2016/C 343/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pledgeling LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the letter ‘p’ — Application for registration No 12 123 147

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1693/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 73 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-560/12: Order of the General Court of 6 June 2016 — Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/67

         Order of the General Court of 6 June 2016 — Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA
   (Case T-560/12) (1)

   (2016/C 270/72)
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-379/13 P: Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-51/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/32

         Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-51/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission
   (Case C-379/13 P)
   2013/C 260/59
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (represented by: N. Morais Sarmento and L. Pinto Monteiro, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs in addition to those incurred by the appellant.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         Failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable period of time

   (i)   The proceedings are time-barred
   The appellant submits that the contested decision was adopted after the four-year limitation period for proceedings, as set out in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, (1) had expired. Equally, even if there had been a possible interruption of the limitation period for proceedings, more than twice the limitation period had expired without any decision being taken in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. Since the corresponding right was thus time-barred, the contested decision should be declared unlawful and unenforceable.
   (ii)   Infringement of the principle of legal certainty
   The appellant considers that the fact that the Commission allowed more than 20 years to pass between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the contested decision amounts to a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of European Union law provides that all individuals have the right to have their cases dealt with by the European Union institutions within a reasonable period of time.
   (iii)   Infringement of the rights of the defence
   The appellant considers that its rights of defence have been infringed in so far as, given that more than 20 years had passed between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the appellant was deprived of its right to submit its observations in good time, namely at a point in time when it was still in possession of documents enabling it to justify the expenses which the Commission deemed ineligible.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case T-14/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the Parliament — Waiver of immunity — Action for annulment — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/4

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament
   (Case T-14/09) (1)

   (Privileges and immunities - Member of the Parliament - Waiver of immunity - Action for annulment - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 373/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Frank Vanhecke (Bruges, Belgium) (represented by: R. Tournicourt, B. Siffert and S. Lippens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially H. Krück, A. Baas and E. Waldherr and subsequently H. Krück, E. Waldherr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008 waiving the parliamentary immunity of the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-148/08: Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n o  1 de Málaga — Spain) — Finn Mejnertsen v Betina Mandal Barsoe

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Málaga — Spain) — Finn Mejnertsen v Betina Mandal Barsoe
   (Case C-148/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/70)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-213/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Michaniki AE v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 24 — Grounds for excluding participation in a contract — National measures establishing an incompatibility between the public works sector and that of the media)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Michaniki AE v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias
   (Case C-213/07) (1)

   (Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 24 - Grounds for excluding participation in a contract - National measures establishing an incompatibility between the public works sector and that of the media)
   (2009/C 44/18)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michaniki AE

      Defendants: Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Elliniki Technodomiki Techniki Ependitiki Viomichaniki AE, successor in law to Pantechniki AE, Sindesmos Epikhiriseon Periodikou Tipou
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Question of whether or not the list of grounds for excluding a contractor from participation in the contract is exhaustive
   Operative part of the judgment

               (1)

               The first paragraph of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, must be interpreted as listing exhaustively the grounds based on objective considerations of professional quality which are capable of justifying the exclusion of a contractor from participation in a public works contract. However, that directive does not preclude a Member State from providing for further exclusionary measures designed to ensure observance of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency, provided that such measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective;

               (2)

               Community law must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, whilst pursuing the legitimate objectives of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, establishes an irrebuttable presumption that the status of owner, partner, main shareholder or management executive of an undertaking active in the media sector is incompatible with that of owner, partner, main shareholder or management executive of an undertaking which contracts with the State or a legal person in the public sector in the broad sense to perform a works, supply or services contract.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-438/08: Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/18

         Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-438/08)
   (2008/C 313/27)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the Portuguese Republic, by imposing under, specifically, Articles 3(2), 6(1) and 7 of Decree-Law No 550/99 of 15 December 1999, and point 1(e) of Decree No 1165/2000 of 9 December 2000, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of entities of other Member States intending to carry on in Portugal the activity of vehicle inspection, including, in particular, making the grant of authorisations subject to the public interest, the requirement of minimum share capital of EUR 100 000, the limiting of the undertakings' company objects and the incompatibility rules with regard to other activities of members, managers and directors, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Subordinating the grant of new authorisations to the public interest constitutes a restriction of freedom of establishment, given that legal persons from other Member States seeking to carry on the activity of vehicle inspection in Portugal are subject to the discretionary power of the competent national authorities, which leads to considerable legal uncertainty as to the extent of their rights.
   The requirement of minimum share capital of EUR 100 000 must be regarded as a restriction of freedom of establishment, for it prevents a Community operator having less share capital than the minimum amount demanded by the Portuguese legislation from setting up subsidiaries or branches in Portugal.
   Limiting an undertaking's company objects to the carrying on of the activity of vehicle inspection constitutes a restriction of freedom of establishment, for Community operators legally providing other services at the same time (inspecting, repairing and servicing vehicles) in the Member State of establishment would be obliged to alter the undertaking's objects and, perhaps, even its own internal structure in order to be able to extend to Portugal its vehicle-inspecting activity; in addition, this condition cannot be considered necessary in order to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the providers of that service.
   The incompatibility rules imposed on the members, managers and directors of the undertaking who deal with the manufacture, repair, rental, import or marketing of vehicles, their parts or accessories or who are involved in transport activity are capable of having restrictive effects comparable to those produced by limiting the company objects and of creating significant restrictions of the freedom of establishment of undertakings from other Member States wishing to carry on the vehicle-inspection activities in Portugal, because the providers of vehicle-inspection services already legally established in another Member State, with members, managers or directors carrying on other activities in the Member State of establishment, would have to alter their internal structure, part company with those members or cause them to give up the incompatible activities.


title: Joined Cases C-533/12 P and C-536/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA v Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, French Republic (C-533/12 P), French Republic v Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (C-536/12 P) (Appeals — Restructuring aid — European Commission’s margin of assessment — Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union — Market economy private investor test — Requirement for a sectoral and geographical analysis — Sufficiently well-established practice — Long-term economic rationale — Making of additional redundancy payments)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA v Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, French Republic (C-533/12 P), French Republic v Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (C-536/12 P)
      (Joined Cases C-533/12 P and C-536/12 P) (1)

      ((Appeals - Restructuring aid - European Commission’s margin of assessment - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union - Market economy private investor test - Requirement for a sectoral and geographical analysis - Sufficiently well-established practice - Long-term economic rationale - Making of additional redundancy payments))
      (2014/C 395/07)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

      (Case C-533/12 P)

         Appellant: Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats), European Commission, French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)
      (Case C-536/12 P)

         Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats), European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the appeals;

                  2)

                  Orders Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditérrannée (SNCM) SA and the French Republic to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Corsica Ferries France SAS in equal shares.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-432/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Expiry review — Likelihood of recurrence of injury — European Union interest — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council
   (Case T-432/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Expiry review - Likelihood of recurrence of injury - European Union interest - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 198/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhksy, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, and subsequently by A. Polcyn and D. Geradin, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 of 26 June 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia (OJ 2012 L 174, p. 5), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case T-337/07: Action brought on 6 September 2007 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/56

         Action brought on 6 September 2007 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)
   (Case T-337/07)
   (2007/C 269/101)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Brilliant Hotelsoftware Limited (London, United Kingdom) (represented by J. Croll and C. Pappas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 June 2007 and register the trade mark ‘BRILLIANT’ in the Register of trade marks;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BRILLIANT’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 (application No 4 345 849).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the trade mark applied for is not descriptive and does not lack the necessary distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-31/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/28

         Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission
   (Case T-31/07)
   (2007/C 69/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Du Pont de Nemours (France) SAS (Puteaux, France), Du Pont Portugal Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal), Du Pont Ibérica SL (Barcelona, Spain), Du Pont de Nemours (Belgium) BVBA (Mechelen, Belgium), Du Pont de Nemours Italiana Srl (Milan, Italy), Du Pont de Nemours (Nederland) BV (Dordrecht, The Netherlands), Du Pont de Nemours (Deutschland) GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany), DuPont CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), DuPont Hungary Trading Ltd (Budaors, Hungary), DuPont Poland Sp.z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland), DuPont Romania Srl (Bucharest, Romania), Du Pont (UK) Ltd (Herts, United Kingdom), Du PontAGro Hellas SA (Athens, Greece), DuPont International Operations Sarl (Switzerland), DuPont Solutions (France) SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, N. Rampal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance insofar as it fixes the expiration date of the inclusion period for flusilazole at 30 June 2008;

               —

               annulment of Article 3(2) of Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance insofar as it fixes the date until which Member States shall, after re-evaluation, amend or withdraw the authorisation of products containing flusilazole at 30 June 2008;

               —

               annulment of part A of the Specific Provisions contained in annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC insofar as it places a restriction on the types of crops on which the use of flusilazole may be authorised by the Member States following its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, and which must be implemented by 30 June 2007 (‘the contested restrictions’);

               —

               condemn the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested restrictions and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants currently estimated at approximately $109 million (around €84 million); or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage;

               —

               in the alternative, to order the parties to produce within a reasonable period of time from the date of the judgement figures as to the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, to order the parties to produce within the same period their conclusions with detailed figures;

               —

               order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of the annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC (1), of 11 December 2006 amending Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter, the ‘PPPD’) insofar as it imposes constraints both to the inclusion period of flusilazole and to the types of crops on which the use of flusilazole may be authorised by Member States.
   The applicants claim that the contested restrictions are illegal insofar as they are based on a pure ‘hazard ’assessment and not a ‘risk ’assessment as required by Directive 91/414/EEC. More specifically, they submit that by reducing the inclusion period to 18 months instead of the normal period of 10 years, as well as by restricting the authorised use of flusilazole to certain crops only, the Commission has allegedly infringed its obligations deriving from the EC Treaty and the said directive and its amending regulations as well as several fundamental principles and objectives of Community law. Namely, the applicants claim that the principle of proportionality, the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard, as well as principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and non- discrimination, and the duty to provide an appropriate statement of reasons have been violated by the defendant. It is finally submitted that the defendant misused its powers in view of the fact that the restrictions have been decided arbitrarily, irrespective of the criteria set in the directive.
   In addition to the action for annulment, the applicants have also introduced an action for compensation on the basis of Articles 235 and 288(2) EC in order to repair the damage allegedly suffered by them as a result of the contested restrictions.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance; OJ L 349, 2006, p. 27.

      (2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of 15 July 1991, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; OJ L 230, 1991, p. 1.


title: Case T-345/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PUERTA DE LABASTIDA — Earlier national word mark CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA — Earlier Community word marks CASTILLO LABASTIDA — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)
   (Case T-345/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PUERTA DE LABASTIDA - Earlier national word mark CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA - Earlier Community word marks CASTILLO LABASTIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL (Autol, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda (Labastida, Spain) (represented: initially by P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 1021/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda and Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Joined Cases T-396/05 and T-397/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contract concerning a project of renovation of an urban property complex — Reimbursement of a part of the sums advanced — Claim for the Commission to be ordered to pay the balance — Counterclaim by the Commission — Action for annulment — Recovery decision — Debit note — Measures of a contractual nature — Inadmissibility — Set-off of claims)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — ArchiMEDES v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-396/05 and T-397/05) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract concerning a project of renovation of an urban property complex - Reimbursement of a part of the sums advanced - Claim for the Commission to be ordered to pay the balance - Counterclaim by the Commission - Action for annulment - Recovery decision - Debit note - Measures of a contractual nature - Inadmissibility - Set-off of claims)
   2009/C 180/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) (Ganges, France) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and R. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially K. Kańska and E. Manhaeve and subsequently E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Re:

               —

               In Case T-396/05, application for annulment based on Article 230 EC, first, of the Commission decision to recover the advances paid under its contract with the applicant and, secondly, of the Commission decision to impose a set-off of claims on the applicant;

               —

               In Case T-397/05, application based on contractual liability under Article 238 EC, seeking an order that the Commission pay the balance of the subsidy provided for by that contract.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In Case T-396/05, the action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against debit note No 3240705638 and the recovery decision contained in the letter of the Commission of the European Communities of 30 August 2005;

               2.

               In Case T-396/05, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the Commission decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to impose upon Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) a set-off of their mutual claims;

               3.

               In Case T-397/05, the action is dismissed;

               4.

               In Case T-397/05, ArchiMEDES is ordered to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 148 256,86 together with default interest at the rate prescribed by French law, without that rate exceeding 5.5 % per annum, until the debt is discharged in full;

               5.

               In Case T-396/05, ArchiMEDES is ordered to pay, in addition to its own expenses, half of the expenses incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-396/05 R;

               6.

               In Case T-397/05, ArchiMEDES is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-397/05 R.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-253/01: Action brought on 11 October 2001 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.2.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 31/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Commission’s approach was unfair to the applicant in several
                                                                        ways and, given the nature of the applicant’s infringement and
                                                                        the negligible impact it had on the market, a significantly
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of the European              lower starting figure should have been assigned to the applicant
      Communities of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding              than to some of the other undertakings.
      under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of
      the EEA Agreement in Case No COMP/E-1/36.490 —
      Graphite electrodes, in so far as it imposes a fine on the        Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission erred
      applicant;                                                        in finding that the applicant should be given only a 40 %
                                                                        reduction for mitigating circumstances. The Commission failed
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                to take into account the ways in which the applicant acted
      applicant in the Decision of the Commission of the                directly contrary to the fundamental principles and purposes
      European Communities of 18 July 2001 relating to a                of the cartel, and the Commission should have given the
      proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and                  applicant an additional reduction based on its early cessation
      Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case No COMP/                  of the illegal practices. The Commission should also have
      E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes; and                             considered the applicant’s disadvantages relative to its competi-
                                                                        tors and the applicant’s precarious financial position. Finally,
                                                                        the applicant should have been given a much more significant
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          reduction than the 20 % reduction granted to it under the
                                                                        Leniency Notice (1).
                                                                        (1) Commission Notice of 18 July 1996 on the non-imposition or
                                                                            reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ [1996] C 207, p. 4).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an American company which historically has
been a small participant in the electrode business. The decision
which forms the subject matter of its action found that
the applicant, together with seven other undertakings, had
infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty by participating in a
complex of agreements and concerted practices in the graphite           Action brought on 11 October 2001 by UPS Europe
sector. The decision imposed a fine of EUR 10,3 million on              NV/SA against the Commission of the European Com-
the applicant. Proceedings relating to these agreements and                                            munities
practices were also undertaken in other jurisdictions, e.g. in
the United States, where the applicant was not charged with                                        (Case T-253/01)
any criminal violation. After receipt of the contested decision,
the applicant filed for bankruptcy.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/27)
The purpose of the applicant’s action is not to contest the                                 (Language of the case: English)
finding of the cartel or the applicant’s involvement, but rather
to obtain a reduction in the fine imposed by the Commission.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant submits that the Commission, in fixing the                European Communities on 11 October 2001 by UPS Europe
amount of the fine imposed on the applicant, has infringed the          NV/SA, represented by Mr T.R. Ottervanger of Allen & Overy,
general principles of the Treaty and incorrectly appreciated the        Brussels (Belgium).
factors that should determine the level of such a fine. The fine
of EUR 10,3 million is wholly unjustified and excessive in all
the circumstances.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty
The applicant alleges that the Commission erred in finding                    that the Commission has failed to act by not having
that the appropriate starting point for the applicant’s fine was              rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
EUR 16 million and that it failed to distinguish the gravity of               of time upon the Applicant’s complaints lodged with the
the applicant’s infringement from that of the other producers’                Commission on 7 July 1994 and on 8 June 1998 and
infringements. The Commission ignored the fact that the                       upon the opening of the procedure under Article 88(2)
applicant was a price follower before, during and after the                   of the EC Treaty on 17 August 1999 (published in the
cartel and that its conduct had no impact on competition. The                 Official Journal of 23 October 1999, C 306/25);
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/14                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.2.2002
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the           The Applicant submits that there is no justification for the
      Applicant in the present proceedings;                           failure of the Commission to act within a reasonable time.
                                                                      The preliminary investigation of the Commission has taken
                                                                      63 months for the first complaint and 16 months for
—     take further action as the Court may deem appropriate.          the second complaint. Moreover, the formal investigation
                                                                      procedure has already taken two years. Consequently, Deutsche
                                                                      Post has been able to profit from illegal state aid without any
                                                                      interference from the Commission for an extremely long
                                                                      period. As a result of this the competitive position of the
                                                                      Applicant as a competitor of Deutsche Post has been seriously
                                                                      affected.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999, p. 30.
                                                                      (2) OJ C 174, 19.6.1999, p. 14.
On 7 July 1994, the Applicant, a company in the United Parcel         (3) Published in the OJ C 306, 23.10.1999, p. 25.
Services Group (UPS), which distributes parcels throughout
the world, lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging
ongoing state aid arising from, among other things, the
covering of losses and cross-subsidisation of the parcel service
by monopoly revenues from Deutsche Post’s letter post
activities; by the same letter a complaint was also filed under
Article 82 of the EC Treaty. On 2 October 1998, the
Commission informed the Applicant that it would examine               Action brought on 22 November 2001 by Johannes
the position and the behaviour of Deutsche Post AG under                     Priesemann against the European Central Bank
Article 82 of the Treaty and would not begin, at least for the
time being, a procedure under Article 88. The Applicant
lodged an Application asking the Court of First Instance to                                    (Case T-286/01)
annul this ‘decision’ (Case T-182/98) (1).
                                                                                (2002/C 31/28)
On 8 June 1998, the Applicant filed another complaint,                                   (Language of the case: German)
alleging that state aid was involved in the use of monopoly
revenues for the financing of the acquisition of shares of DHL
International. On 21 December 1998 it sent a letter to the
Commission asking it to take a position on its complaint              An action against the European Central Bank was brought
within two months. The period of two months expired without           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the Commission having taken a decision or defined its position        on 22 November 2001 by Johannes Priesemann, residing in
and accordingly the Applicant initiated proceedings under             Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger,
Article 232 of the Treaty (Case T-98/99) (2).                         Rechtsanwalt.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
By letter of 17 August 1999, the Commission notified the
Federal Republic of Germany of its decision to initiate the           —     set aside the decision of the European Central Bank to
procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty (3). The                 refuse the education allowance for the benefit of his three
Application in Case T-182/98 was dismissed as inadmissible                  children, and, if necessary, set aside the decisions of the
(Order of the Fourth Chamber of 30 September 1999) and                      defendant in the preliminary proceedings;
Case T-98/99 was removed from the register (Order of the
President of the Fourth Chamber of 29 October 1999).                  —     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.
On 5 June 2001, given that the Commission had not taken a             Pleas in law and main arguments
position as to the compatibility with the Common Market of
the measures that are the subject of the two complaints, the
Applicant asked it to define its position and/or take the             The applicant, an employee of the European Central Bank,
measures requested in each of the complaints. The time period         applied for an education allowance to send his three children
of two months within the meaning of Article 232 EC Treaty             to an international school. The defendant refused the appli-
expired on 5 August 2001 without the Commission having                cation on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the
defined its position with regard to the Applicant’s complaints.       conditions for the allowance, not being already entitled to the
Therefore the Applicant has lodged the present Application.           expatriation allowance.


title: Case C-199/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Ciclat Soc. Coop. v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Ciclat Soc. Coop. v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture
   (Case C-199/15)
   (2015/C 262/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ciclat Soc. Coop.

      Respondents: Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      Question referred

   Do Article 45 of Directive 18/2004 (1), read also in the light of the principle of reasonableness, and Articles 49 and 56 TFEU preclude national legislation which, in relation to a threshold-based procurement procedure, allows a request to be made by the contracting authority on its own initiative for the certificate issued by the social security institutions (‘DURC’) and obliges that authority to exclude the tenderer if the certificate discloses an earlier failure to pay contributions, in particular one existing at the time of participation but not known to that operator, which took part on the strength of a positive currently valid DURC, but that infringement in any case no longer exists at the time of the award or of the verification carried out on the contracting authority’s own initiative?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-400/10: Action brought on 12 September 2010 — Hamas v Council

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/32

         Action brought on 12 September 2010 — Hamas v Council
   (Case T-400/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Act C 188/13 of 13 July 2010;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP of 12 July 2010;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010;

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs and expenses.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Act 2010/C 188/09, (1) of Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP (2) and also Council Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, (3) in so far as the applicant’s name was retained on the list of persons, groups and entities whose funds and economic resources are frozen pursuant to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (4) and Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 with a view to combating terrorism.
   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its action. With respect to Council Act 2010/C 188/09 it alleges:

               —

               infringement of the third subparagraph of Article 297(2) TFEU in that the applicant did not receive notification of that act and mere publication in the Official Journal of the European Union cannot be deemed to be notification of such an act;

               —

               infringement of the second indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that that act was virtually inaccessible for the applicant;

               —

               infringement of Article 6(3)(a) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) concerning the right of an accused person to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

         With respect to Decision 2010/386/CFSP and Regulation No 610/2010 the applicant alleges:

               —

               manifest error of assessment, as Hamas is a legitimately elected government and, in accordance with the principle of non-interference in the internal matters of a State, cannot be placed on lists of terrorists;

               —

               infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights through the infringement of:

                           —

                           its rights of defence, and the right to good administration, as the decision to retain the applicant on the list of persons, groups and entities whose funds and economic resources are frozen was not preceded by a notification of the evidence held against it and the applicant was not given the opportunity to present duly its submissions on that evidence;

                           —

                           property rights, in that the freezing of the applicant’s funds is an unjustified restriction on its property rights;

               —

               infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, in that the Council did not provide a specific statement of reasons either in Decision 2010/386/CFSP or in Regulation No 610/2010.

      (1)  Council Act 2010/C 188/09 of 13 July 2010: Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2010 C 188, p. 13).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP of 12 July 2010 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 28).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 March 1998 in Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Decision ordering removal from post - Action for annulment - Concurrent disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings - Errors of assessment - Right to a fair hearing - Articles 12, 13, 14, 21 and 86 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Misuse of powers)

text:
2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/13
result to be achieved, on each Member State to which it is                  Removal from the register of C-261/97 (1)
addressed, Member States are required to observe the time
                                                                                (98/C 137/26)
limits laid down in directives for their transposition. That
time limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directive
93/18/EEC and on 20 December 1994 in respect of
Directive 94/60/EC without the Italian Republic having             By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
comply therewith.                                                  removal from the register of Case C-261/97 (reference for
                                                                   a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Karl
(1) OJ L 104, 29.4.1993, p. 46.                                    Heinz Baumann v. Urssaf Lille.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          4. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                      of 17 March 1998
                                                                   (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
in Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Article 24 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duty to
provide assistance Ð Decision implicitly rejecting a
                            request)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (98/C 137/27)
                                                                                of 19 March 1998
                                                                   in Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos v. Commission of the
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                       European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
In Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the             Action for annulment Ð Concurrent disciplinary
Commission of the European Communities, assigned to                proceedings and criminal proceedings Ð Errors of
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Ispra (Italy),       assessment Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Articles 12, 13,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with a right          14, 21 and 86 of the Staff Regulations Ð Principle of
of audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, with an         proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Misuse
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         of powers)
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of                                    (98/C 137/28)
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð
application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission implicitly rejecting the request for assistance                        (Language of the case: French)
submitted by the applicant on 28 July 1994 and, second,
for compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              In Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,        Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 March                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1998, in which it:                                                 Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                   Gianluigi Valsesia, Denis Waelbroeck and Olivier
1. annuls the decision of the Commission implicitly                Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the decision
    rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the          of the Commission of 22 June 1995 removing the
    applicant on 28 July 1994;                                     applicant from his post without loss of entitlement to a
                                                                   retirement pension and for annulment of the decision of
                                                                   19 February 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant the token            by the applicant on 21 September 1995 against the
    sum of ECU 1 by way of compensation for the non-               decision of 22 June 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance
    material damage suffered;                                      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and
                                                                   K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          19 March 1998, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 137/14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.5.98
1. dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 February 1998
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             (Officials Ð Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations Ð
                                                                     Claims which are manifestly inadmissible or wholly
                                                                                unfounded in law)
                                                                                (98/C 137/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     In Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou, an official of
                      of 19 March 1998                               the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
in Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal v. Commission of
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
               the European Communities (1)
                                                                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
(Access to information Ð Commission Decision 94/90/                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ECSC/EC/Euratom Ð Refusal of access Ð Scope of the                   Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) Ð application, first,
exception relating to the protection of the public interest          for annulment of the decision of the Commission of
Ð Court proceedings Ð European Convention on Human                   8 January 1996 classifying the applicant in grade A 7,
                       Rights, Article 6)                            step 5, and implicitly refusing to classify her in grade A 6,
                                                                     second, for annulment of the decision of 28 August 1996
                        (98/C 137/29)                                rejecting a complaint against that decision and, third, for
                                                                     compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                         composed of A. Saggio, President, and B. Vesterdorf and J.
                                                                     Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     13 February 1998, the operative part of which is as
In Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal, residing in                     follows:
Kraainem, Belgium, represented initially by Caroline P.
Bleeker and Laura Y. J. M. Parret, of the Hague Bar and
                                                                     1. the action is dismissed;
the Brussels Bar respectively, and subsequently by Laura
Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, supported              2. the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra
and Johannes S. van den Oosterkamp), against                         (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Wouter Wils and Ulrich Wölker) Ð application for the
annulment of the Commission's Decision of 29 March
1996 refusing the applicant access to letters sent by the
Directorate-General for Competition to national courts in
the context of the notice on cooperation between national                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                    of 28 January 1998
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh              in Case T-172/97: Camar Srl v. Commission of the
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                               European Communities (1)
judgment on 19 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                                                                     Bananas Ð Application for the allocation of additional
                                                                     import licences Ð Action for a declaration of failure to
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     act Ð Action for damages Ð No need to adjudicate Ð
                                                                                Removal from the Register)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                                     (98/C 137/31)
    defendant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its                 In Case T-172/97: Camar Srl, having its registered office
    own costs.                                                       in Florence (Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ,
                                                                     assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Hubertus van Vliet, Paolo Ziotti and Alberto Dal


title: Case T-98/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Heating radiators)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/60

         Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Heating radiators)
   (Case T-98/15)
   (2015/C 138/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design for ‘heating radiators’ — Community design No 169 370-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2014 in Case R 1643/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, consequently, find and declare that Community design No 169 370-0002, belonging to Tubes Radiatori Srl, is valid, since it is new and has individual character;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 1d of Regulation (EC) No 216/96, the adversarial principle, and the duty to provide a statement of reasons;

               —

               Objection of res judicata.


title: Case C-29/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/16

         Action brought on 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-29/12)
   2012/C 98/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2009/131/EC of 16 October 2009 amending Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 19 July 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 273, p. 12.


title: Case C-330/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edison Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edison Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
   (Case C-330/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edison Trading SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Case T-51/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Partial revocation — Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
      (Case T-51/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Lucknow, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Casucci, N. Ferreti and C. Galli, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1);

                  2.

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-194/05: Action brought on 2 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the the Italian Republic

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/24

         Action brought on 2 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the the Italian Republic
   (Case C-194/05)
   (2005/C 182/45)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, and G. Bambara, of the Milan Bar.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Italian Republic, in so far as Article 10 of Law No 93 of 2001 and Article 1(17) and (19) of Law No 443 of 2001 exclude excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use for re-filling, infilling, embanking and grinding, with the exception of materials from polluted sites and reclaimed land with a concentration of pollutants above the acceptable limits laid down by the applicable rules, from the scope of national rules on waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)

               2.

               order the the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Commission takes the view that the Italian Republic, in so far as it excludes excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use for re-filling, infilling, embanking and grinding, from the scope of national rules on waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.

      (1)  OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 78 of 26.03.1991, p. 32.


title: Case T-137/00: Action brought on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.7.2000
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice           Pleas in law and main arguments
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for            — Adipex Retard capsules are placed on the market solely on
                              laundry use; cleaning prep-                    the basis of a national Austrian authorisation, for the
                              arations, preparations for the                 grant of which the mutual recognition procedure under
                              washing of dishes, soaps, per-                 Chapter III of Directive 75/319 (1) was not applied. The
                              fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,             defendant was therefore not competent to adopt the
                              hair lotions, dentifrices)                     contested decision.
Contested        decision    Refusal of registration by the             — The Commission wrongly based its decision on Article 15a
before the Board of           examiner                                       of Directive 75/319 and the criteria in Article 5 of Directive
Appeal:                                                                      65/65 (2). In fact only Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC is
                                                                             material, however.
Grounds for appeal:          Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.                         — The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation are not
                                                                             satisfied. It has not been sufficiently established either that
                                                                             phentermin is harmful or that it lacks therapeutic effect if
                                                                             correctly used.
                                                                        (1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
                                                                            approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                            administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
                                                                            (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
Action brought on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeutika                        mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                            ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English
                           munities                                         Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                        (Case T-132/00)
                       (2000/C 192/49)
                 (Language of the case: German)                         Action brought on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge Healthcare
                                                                        Supplies Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeu-                                            (Case T-137/00)
tika GmbH, of Vienna, represented by Dr Karl Grigkar,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna.                                                                              (2000/C 192/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 452 of 9 March
    2000 on withdrawal of authorisation of medicinal prod-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    ucts for human use which contain the substance phen-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    termin, in particular with respect to the medicinal product         European Communities on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge
    Adipex Retard capsules authorised for the applicant; in             Healthcare Supplies Limited, represented by David Vaughan,
    eventu                                                              Q.C., Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, and Simon Davis, Solicitor,
                                                                        Clifford Chance, London.
— annul the Commission’s decision in so far as Article 1 in
    conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    State Austria to withdraw the authorisation for the appli-
    cant’s medicinal product containing phentermin, namely              — annul Commission Decision C(2000)452, of 9 March
    Adipex Retard capsules;                                                  2000;
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                    — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 192/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            CPMP and the procedure of the Commission in adopting
                                                                           the decision;
The contested decision requires the Member States to withdraw         — the decision infringes the tests in Directives 65/65/EEC (2)
the marketing authorisations of Phentermine containing med-                and 75/319/EEC for the withdrawal of a marketing
icinal products.                                                           authorisation; and the duty, in Article 253 EC, to state the
                                                                           reasons on which it was based;
The applicant is a Marketing Authorisation Holder in the
                                                                      — the evaluation by the CPMP and Commission of both the
United Kingdom for 15mg and 30mg strength Ionamin
                                                                           safety and efficacy aspects of Phentermine is not supported
capsules, which are medicinal products containing Phentermi-
                                                                           by any reliable scientific evidence, and is in fact contradict-
ne. It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
                                                                           ed by overwhelming evidence provided by both the
grounds:
                                                                           applicant and the CPMP itself.
— the referral of Phentermine to the Committee for Pro-
    prietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), under Article 15a of          (1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
                                                                          approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or
    Directive 75/319/EEC (1), was invalid; further the CPMP in            Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    its opinion went outside the scope of the referral; thus the          (OJ L 147 p. 13).
    Commission was not competent to take action;                      (2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
                                                                          mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
— the decision is flawed by the infringement of essential                 trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ
    procedural requirements, both in the procedure before the             1965, 22, p. 369).


title: Case F-100/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Daily allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual establishment in the place of employment — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Legal costs — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-100/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Daily allowance - Conditions for granting - Actual establishment in the place of employment - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Legal costs - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
   2013/C 252/86
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant to the applicant the daily allowances linked to the decision relating to transfer him from the delegation in Angola to headquarters in Brussels.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 67.


title: Case T-535/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — The Cookware Company v OHIM — Fissler (VITA+VERDE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark VITA+VERDE — Earlier word mark VITAVIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — The Cookware Company v OHIM — Fissler (VITA+VERDE)
   (Case T-535/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark VITA+VERDE - Earlier word mark VITAVIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 078/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Cookware Company Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2014 (Case R 1082/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Fissler GmbH and The Cookware Company Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Cookware Company Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2002 in Case T-323/00: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "SAT. 2" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Equal treatment)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 202/23
1.    Dismisses the action in so far as it relates to the category of       2.   Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
      documents constituted by the minutes of the meetings of the                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      cancer experts committee assessing the international scientific            Designs) of 2 August 2000 (Case R 312/1999-2) in so far
      research;                                                                  as the Board dismissed the appeal before it as regards the
                                                                                following categories of services:
2.    Finds that there is no need to proceed to judgment on the
      remainder of the case;
                                                                                —     ‘Services relating to a database’ within Class 38;
3.    Orders the Commission in addition to bearing its own costs, to
      pay those of the applicant, save for costs relating to the request
      for the oral procedure to be re-opened. The Commission is also             —     ‘Production and reproduction of data, speech, text, sound
      ordered to pay the costs connected with the summoning of                         and image recordings on video and/or audio cassettes,
      witnesses.                                                                       tapes and discs (including CD-ROMs and CD-i’s) and of
                                                                                video games (computer games); demonstration and rental
                                                                                of video and/or audio cassettes, tapes and discs (including
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.                                                             CD-ROMs and CD-i’s) and of video games (computer
                                                                                games); rental of television receiving apparatus and
                                                                                decoders; education, providing of training, entertainment;
                                                                                sporting and cultural activities; conducting competitions
                                                                                in the fields of training, teaching, entertainment and
                                                                                sports; distance learning courses; publishing books, per-
                                                                                iodicals and other printed matter and associated electronic
                                                                                media (including CD-ROMs and CD-i’s); conducting
                                                                                concert, theatre and entertainment events and sporting
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                            competitions; production of films and videos and radio
                                                                                and television programmes of a training, teaching and
                                                                                entertaining nature, including such production for children
                           of 2 July 2002                                              and young people; production, reproduction, showing and
                                                                                rental of sound and image recordings on video and/or
in Case T-323/00: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH                                       audio cassettes, tapes and discs; theatrical performances
v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                               and orchestra services’ within Class 41;
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                —     ‘Issuing, negotiating, rental and other exploitation of
(Community trade mark — ‘SAT. 2’ — Absolute grounds                                    rights to films, television and video productions and other
for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC)                               image and sound programmes; copyright and industrial
                  No 40/94 — Equal treatment)                                          property rights exploitation for others; exploitation of film
                                                                                and television ancillary rights in the field of merchandis-
                          (2002/C 202/34)                                              ing; software development, in particular in the fields of
                                                                                multimedia, interactive television and Pay-TV; operation
                                                                                of networks for the transfer of messages, images, text,
                    (Language of the case: German)                                     speech and data; technical consultancy in the field of
                                                                                multimedia, interactive television and Pay-TV (included
                                                                                in class 42); computer programming, including video
                                                                                and computer games; arranging and allocating of user
In Case T-323/00, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, estab-                               passwords for users of various communication networks’
lished in Mainz (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,                                within Class 42;
lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl
and C. Røhl Søberg): Action brought against the decision of                 3.   Dismisses the remainder of the application;
the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August
2000 (Case R 312/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Second               4.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 July 2002, in which
it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 2 August 2000 (Case R 312/1999-2) in so far
      as the Board failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards the
      services within Class 35;