title: Case C-488/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera v Administración General del Estado

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-488/09)
   2010/C 63/33
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               If, after a Member State has detected an irregularity in the customs treatment of a TIR transport operation and has made a claim for payment of the amount corresponding to the assessment issued to the local guaranteeing association, the place where the infringement was actually committed is determined, is it compatible with Article 454(3) and Article 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 for the Member State where the infringement was committed to initiate new proceedings to recover the duties owed by the persons principally liable and by the guaranteeing association of the place where the infringement was actually committed, up to the limit of its liability, where the place where the infringement was committed is determined after the expiry of the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation?

         If the answer is in the affirmative:

               2.

               May the guaranteeing association of the Member State in which the irregularity was actually committed claim, under Articles 454(3) and 455 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 or Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, that the right to recover the amount of the guaranteed liability is time-barred because the prescribed time-limit has expired and it had no knowledge of the facts before the expiry of that time-limit?

               3.

               Does the claim for payment made against the guaranteeing association of the State which detected the irregularity by the customs authorities of that State under Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention have suspensory effect with respect to the proceedings initiated against the guaranteeing association of the place where the infringement was committed?

               4.

               Can the last sentence of Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention be interpreted as meaning that the time-limit which it establishes is applicable to the State of the place of infringement even where the State which detected the irregularity did not suspend the demand for payment against the guaranteeing association, despite the existence of criminal proceedings relating to the same acts found to have been committed?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of Case T-228/95

text:
No C 233/24          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               10 . 8 . 96
The selection board thus committed a manifest error of               damage for which the Commission was liable to make
assessment and infringed the notice of competition by                compensation .
disregarding, without stating any reason, the experience
acquired during the four and a half years spent preparing her
doctoral thesis .
The Commission also committed an administrative error by                   Removal from the^register of Case T-228/95 ( )
stating incorrect reasons in its letter to her of 15 February                                  ( 96/C 233 /41 )
1996 for the selection board's decision not to admit her to
the competition tests, namely that she had not lodged the                          (Language of tbe Case: English)
documents evidencing her professional experience within
the time limit. It was subsequently shown that those                 By order of 21 June 1996 , the President of the Fourth
documents had in fact been lodged on time . The applicant            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
stresses that that error, which was inexcusable having               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
regard to the low participation in the competition, resulted         T-228/95 : S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the European
in her being thrown into several months' uncertainty and             Union and Commission of the European Communities .
anxiety as to her admission to the competition and as to
her professional future . She thus suffered non-material             (•) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case T-28/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Fels-Werke and Others v Commission (Application for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National plan for Germany's allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Commission rejection decision — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Fels-Werke and Others v Commission
   (Case T-28/07) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National plan for Germany's allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Commission rejection decision - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 283/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany); Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany); and Spenner Zement GmbH & Co KG (Erwitte, Germany) (represented by: H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment in part of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany for the period from 2008 to 2012 pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissibile;

               2.

               Fels-Werke GmbH, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH and Spenner Zement GmbH & Co KG are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-376/07: Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Germany v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/42

         Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-376/07)
   (2007/C 297/86)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3226 of 18 July 2007 concerning an order to provide information in relation to MX 19/2006 — Monitoring of State aid scheme XS 24/2002 — Financing of business start-ups and growth (‘GuW’) — Germany and MX 9/2006 — Monitoring of State aid scheme XS 29/2002 — Guidelines for implementing the Bavarian regional aid programme for industry and commerce — Germany;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3226 final of 18 July 2007 concerning an order to provide information pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (1) in relation to State aid schemes XS 24/2002 and XS 29/2002.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits first that the contested decision infringes Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (2). The applicant submits in this regard that by making this request for information, the Commission is carrying out an ex-post control without cause. According to the applicant, that control goes beyond the authority which Regulation No 994/98 confers on the defendant, which provides that the Commission has the right to request information only if it harbours doubts concerning the proper implementation of a group exemption regulation.
   In addition, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the principle of nemini licet venire contra factum proprium (estoppel), because several Commission documents show that the Commission itself assumes that it does not have the authority to conduct an ex-post control without cause.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (OJ 1998 L 142, p. 1).


               9.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/60

         Action brought on 8 March 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland
   (Case E-3/07)
   (2007/C 186/09)
   An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 8 March 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Arne Torsten Andersen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred at the second indent of point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Area (Directive 2002/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Act and Article 7 EEA; and

               2.

               order the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The present case concerns the non-implementation of an environmental protection directive.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not implemented the directive.


title: Case C-250/00: Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 233/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
                                                                          Article 12 prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the               nationality. Article 49 EC, for its part, lays down the principle
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-              of freedom to provide services, according to which, an
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with               economic operator established in one Member State must be
      Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998                   able to pursue his activities in another Member State, without
      amending       Directives       80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,        his nationality giving rise to discrimination by comparison
      91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and repe-                 with the nationals of the second Member State. However,
      aling Directive 92/87/EEC (1), the French Republic has              Article 6 of Portaria (order) No 17568 of 6 February 1960
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of            requires ‘foreign entities or individuals’ to obtain a licence for
      Directive 98/67/EC;                                                 the taking of aerial photographs or film. The Portuguese
                                                                          authorities confirm that they do apply the legislation at issue,
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           considering such restrictions to be necessary, not on grounds
                                                                          of the nationality of the entity which applies for authorisation
                                                                          or is to use such photographs, but on the basis of the need to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           protect the strategic interests of national defence. However,
                                                                          mere interpretation by the Portuguese administration which
                                                                          makes more flexible the provisions of the aforementioned
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  order, with a view to making the conditions laid down for
put forward in Case C-236/00 (2); the period prescribed for               foreigners similar to those laid down for nationals, is not
transposition expired on 31 December 1998.                                sufficient to cure the incompatibility.
(1) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
(2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
                                                                          tário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção by
                                                                          order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against
                                                                          the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e
                                                                                Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa
Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                                 (Case C-251/00)
                              Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 233/47)
                         (Case C-250/00)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2000/C 233/46)                                  European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributário de
                                                                          1.a Instância de Lisboa 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção (Second Division
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before              — First Chamber of the Fiscal Court of First Instance of Lisbon)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June               of 13 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Maria Patakia and Miguel França, of its Legal              Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                 da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              das Alfândegas de Lisboa. The Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instân-
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  cia de Lisboa, 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção, asks the Court of Justice
                                                                          to rule on: (a) the interpretation of Article 201(3) of the
                                                                          Community Customs Code (CCC), established by Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992; (b) the
                                                                          validity of the Commission’s decision, in order to be able to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which             answer the following questions:
      only authorises Community nationals to take aerial
      photographs or film in exceptional and duly justified               1.    Is it permissible to require payment of the customs debt
      cases, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12             by importers who, acting in good faith and with due care,
      and 49 EC;                                                                processed their declarations, over a number of years,
                                                                                unaware of any irregularities which were known to either
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           the Turkish or Community authorities?


title: Case C-44/10: Action brought on 28 January 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/23

         Action brought on 28 January 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-44/10)
   2010/C 100/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure, by granting permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC (1) and reconsidering and, where necessary, updating permits for existing installations, that those existing installations operated from 30 October 2007 in accordance with Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It follows from Article 4 of the IPPC Directive, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) thereof, that the Member States had to ensure that permits for new and existing installations were granted in accordance with the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the Directive. They also had to reconsider and, where necessary, update the conditions of permits for existing installations by 31 October 2007.
   According to information supplied by the Portuguese authorities in 2008, the relevant authorisation was not applied for in respect of a number of installations. In addition, 280 out of a total of 632 installations operated without the relevant permit being granted.
   According to updated information, 481 out of a total of 577 installations have permits, with 17 authorisation procedures pending.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.


title: Case F-82/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — New 2007 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/89

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-82/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - New 2007 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 048/99)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Adjudication Panel’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the result of the second overall appraisal of his performance for 2007.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 15 February 2012;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the new staff report for 2007;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 18.


title: Case C-537/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Ralph James Bartlett, Natalio Gonzalez Ramos, Jason Michael Taylor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Mobility component of Disability Living Allowance — Separate benefit — Special non-contributory benefit — Non-exportability)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Ralph James Bartlett, Natalio Gonzalez Ramos, Jason Michael Taylor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-537/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Mobility component of Disability Living Allowance - Separate benefit - Special non-contributory benefit - Non-exportability)
   2011/C 186/09
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ralph James Bartlett, Natalio Gonzalez Ramos, Jason Michael Taylor

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), in the version in force before 5 May 2005 — Subsistence allowance for disabled persons consisting of a ‘care’ component granted to those needing personal assistance and a ‘mobility’ component intended for those needing help in order to move around (‘Disability living allowance’) — Possibility, for the purposes of applying the regulation, of regarding the mobility component as a separate benefit — Categorisation of that benefit

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(2a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and of Regulation No 1408/71, in the latter version, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance constitutes a special non-contributory cash benefit within the meaning of that provision, referred to in Annex IIa to those regulations.;

               2.

               Consideration of the third question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 in either of the versions applicable in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that article allows the award of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to be made subject to conditions as to residence and presence in Great Britain.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case F-37/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 September 2012 — Skovbjerg v Commission

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 September 2012 — Skovbjerg v Commission
   (Case F-37/11) (1)

   2013/C 46/67
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011, p. 16.


title: Case C-322/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 23 — Agreement conferring jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement — Definition — General terms and conditions of sale which can be consulted and printed from a link which enables them to be displayed in a new window — Click-wrapping)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-322/14) (1)

   ((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Agreement conferring jurisdiction - Formal requirements - Communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement - Definition - General terms and conditions of sale which can be consulted and printed from a link which enables them to be displayed in a new window - Click-wrapping))
   (2015/C 236/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Krefeld

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jaouad El Majdoub

      Defendant: CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the method of accepting the general terms and conditions of a contract for sale by ‘click-wrapping’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by electronic means, which contains an agreement conferring jurisdiction, constitutes a communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement, within the meaning of that provision, where that method makes it possible to print and save the text of those terms and conditions before the conclusion of the contract.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 30 May 2002 in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (Concept of "court or tribunal of a Member State" within the meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
C 169/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            13.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                            court between Michael Hölterhoff and Ulrich Freiesleben on
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                   the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council
                                                                            Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
                            30 May 2002                                     the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989
                                                                            L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the
in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Fifth Chamber, acting for the President, F. Macken, N. Colneric
the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,                    and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann
   Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (1)                      (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
(Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the                V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the                     Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May
                          Court of Justice)                                 2002, in which it has ruled:
                          (2002/C 169/08)                                   Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
                                                                            1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
                   (Language of the case: German)                           trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a
                                                                            trade mark cannot rely on his exclusive right where a third party, in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the course of commercial negotiations, reveals the origin of goods
                   in the European Court Reports)                           which he has produced himself and uses the sign in question solely to
                                                                            denote the particular characteristics of the goods he is offering for sale
In Case C-516/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  so that there can be no question of the trade mark used being
EC by the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für                    perceived as a sign indicative of the undertaking of origin.
Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Austria) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings brought by Walter Schmid, on                 (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
mermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions referred by the Berufungssenat V der                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland,
by order of 2 December 1999.
                                                                                16 May 2002
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                            in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württem-
                                                                            berg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesan-
                                                                            walt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbun-
                                                                                desanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
                            14 May 2002
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
in Case C-2/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     92 — Integrated administration and control system for
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Michael Hölterhoff v                     certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
                       Ulrich Freiesleben (1)                               Application for ‘livestock’ aid — Checks on animals —
                                                                                Reduction of the amount of aid)
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Scope of the proprietor’s
exclusive right to the trade mark — Third party — Use of                                               (2002/C 169/10)
            the trade mark for descriptive purposes)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2002/C 169/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-63/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-2/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 11 April 1995 in the case of (1) Ebony Maritime SA and (2) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v. Prefetto della Provincia de Brindisi and Others (Case C-177/95)

text:
No C 208/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
                judge, R. Schintgen, to whom objection had            interpreted as meaning that only actual entry into the
                already been repeatedly made,                         territorial waters of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by a
                                                                      ship or other means of transport carrying goods intended for
          ( C ) the objection to Judge R. Schintgen ( Protocol        commercial traffic in the said territorial waters constitutes a
                on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the         breach of the prohibition laid down therein, or do those
                EEC, Article 4, second paragraph, Article 16,         legislative provisions also cover conduct occurring in
                first paragraph, and Article 44 ); lack of            international waters which, because of the specific way in
                impartiality of that judge in any event,              which it is conceived and put into effect, gives good reason
                irrespective of whether the grounds for               to believe that the ship or other means of transport is on
                objection are well founded .                          course for the said territorial waters for the purposes of
                                                                      commercial traffic ?
III. Infringement of Community law and of Article 6 of the
      European Convention on Human Rights and on the                  Question 2 : Do Article 1 ( d ) of the Decision and Article 1 ( d )
      protection of computer data (sic), in that the contested        of the Regulation mentioned above, in so far as they prohibit
      judgment:                                                       any activity the object or effect of which is, directly or
                                                                      indirectly, to promote the transactions mentioned in
      — infringes the rights of the defence,                          Article 1 (c ), include within their scope navigation in
                                                                      international waters by a ship or other means of transport
      — takes no account of the fact that a national court            carrying goods presumably intended for commercial traffic
          has no power to make the Court of Justice party to          in the territorial waters of the Federal Republic of
          proceedings,                                                Yugoslavia ?
      — wrongly declares a number of conditional pre-trial            Question 3 : Is a domestic provision which expressly
          orders, existing only in foreign law, to be effective       prescribes, in the event of breach of any of the prohibitions
          in Community law,                                           contained in the abovementioned Article 1 being
                                                                      ascertained , confiscation — either compulsory or
                                                                      discretionary — of the cargo carried by any of the means of
      — wrongly upheld the flagrant breaches of Article 24            transport indicated in the second paragraph of Article 10 of
          of the Staff Regulations of Officials by the
          Personnel Division of the Court, which failed to            the abovementioned Community Decision and Regulation
          provide its own officials, in this case the appellant,
                                                                      compatible with Community legislation, in particular the
                                                                      first and second paragraphs of the said Article 10 ?
          with the assistance it was expressly obliged to
          provide by the Staff Regulations .
                                                                      I 1 ) OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 17 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Consiglio di Stato by
order of that court of 11 April 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) Ebony
Maritime SA and (2 ) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v.                  Action brought on 9 June 1995 by the Kingdom of Spain
       Prefetto della Provincia de Brindisi and Others                          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C-l 79/95 )
                        ( Case C-177/95 )
                                                                                95/C 208/20 )
                          ( 95/C 208/19 )
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di                  Communities on 9 June 1995 by the Kingdom of Spain,
Stato ( Council of State ) of 11 April 1995 , which was
                                                                      represented by Alberto Navarro Gonzalez, Director General
received at the Court Registry on 6 June 1995 , for a                 for Community Legal and Institutional Coordination, and
preliminary ruling in the case of ( 1 ) Ebony Maritime SA and         by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as
( 2 ) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v. Prefetto della
Provincia de Brindisi and Others on the following
                                                                      Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais .
questions :
Question 1 : Must Article 1 (c ) of Decision 92/235/ECSC ( l )        The applicant claims that the Court should :
of the representatives of the governments of the Member
States meeting within the Council of 26 April 1993                    — annul the last sentence in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( i ) of Annex IV to
concerning trade between the European Coal and Steel                        Council Regulation ( EC ) No 685/95 (*) of 27 March
Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia                   1995 on the management of the fishing effort relating to
and Montenegro ) and Article 1 (c ) of Council Regulation                   certain Community fishing areas and resources,
( EEC ) No 990/93 ( 2 ) of the same date concerning trade
between the European Economic Community and the                       — annul the fifth element concerning anchovy in Annex I to
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) be                 Council Regulation ( EC ) No 746/95 ( 2 ) of 31 March


title: Case T-144/13: Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014  — Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/52

         Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014 — Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology v Commission
   (Case T-144/13) (1)

   2014/C 175/71
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27. 4. 2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-273/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hans-Josef Schlebusch v Hauptzollamt Trier (Additional levy on milk — Original and special reference quantities — Accumulation — Definitive allocation of a special reference quantity — Conditions — Temporary transfer of part of an original reference quantity before the definitive allocation of a special reference quantity)

text:
12.8.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 233/9
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,            obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Directive
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May 2000, in                 76/464 — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: R. Schint-
which it has ruled:                                                        gen, President of the Second Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
                                                                           G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges;
The derogation provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive        P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation             Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000 in which it:
of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of        1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction program-
social security must be interpreted as applying to a benefit, such as            mes including quality objectives for the dangerous substances
the reduced earnings allowance at issue in the main proceedings,                 covered by the first indent of List II of the annex to Council
which was introduced into national legislation after expiry of the               Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
period prescribed for transposition of the Directive and is subject to           certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
age conditions which differ according to sex.                                    environment of the Community, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive;
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                           2.
                                                                                Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                           of 25 May 2000
                                                                                of 25 May 2000
in Case C-384/97 Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                           in Case C-273/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Bundesfinanzhof): Hans-Josef Schlebusch v Haupt-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Water                                             zollamt Trier (1)
pollution — Obligation to adopt programmes in order to
reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances —                  (Additional levy on milk — Original and special reference
          Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC)                       quantities — Accumulation — Definitive allocation of a
                                                                           special reference quantity — Conditions — Temporary
                                                                           transfer of part of an original reference quantity before the
                           (2000/C 233/17)                                      definitive allocation of a special reference quantity)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/18)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-384/97, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                    In Case C-273/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
A. Samoni-Rantou and E.-M. Mamouna) — Application for a                    the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany, for a
declaration that, by failing to establish programmes including             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementa-             court between Hans-Josef Schlebusch and Hauptzollamt Trier
tion, in order to reduce water pollution caused by the                     — on the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of
99 dangerous substances covered by the first indent of List II             Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May                      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances                   to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community                   and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended
(OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), and consequently by failing to require             by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 (OJ
discharges which are made into waters and liable to contain                1991 L 150, p. 35) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
any of the said substances to be subject to a prior authorisation          of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rappor-
issued by the competent authority in which emission standards              teur) and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
are set on the basis of quality objectives laid down in such               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in
programmes, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                 which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)             Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                   have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) applies to
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC)       supplementary retirement pension schemes, such as that at issue in
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by               the main proceedings, and precludes those schemes from discrimina-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be                ting, as from 17 May 1990, between men and women in respect of
interpreted in the light of the principles governing the system for the     the age at which their spouse is entitled to a survivor’s pension
grant of a special reference quantity as meaning that a producer            following the death of those employees.
holding an original reference quantity who provisionally receives a
special reference quantity in addition may not be definitively allocated
that special reference quantity, regardless of the other conditions
                                                                            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
required, when he himself has not used it in order to increase current
milk production on his holding. That is the case where such a
producer leases out his original reference quantity and produces on
his holding only his provisional special reference quantity of milk.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 8 June 2000
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-98/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 25 May 2000                                   the High Court of Justice (England &Wales), Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Commissioners of
in Case C-50/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               Customs & Excise v Midland Bank plc (1)
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): Jean-Marie
Podesta v Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs                 (Value added tax — First and Sixth VAT Directives —
          Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others (1)                         Deduction of input tax — Taxable person carrying out both
                                                                            taxable and exempt transactions — Attribution of input
(Social policy — Equal pay for men and women — Private,                     services to output transactions — Need for a direct and
inter-occupational, supplementary retirement pension sche-                                            immediate link)
me based on defined contributions and run on a ‘pay-as-you-
go’ basis— Survivors’ pensions for which the age conditions
                  for grant vary according to sex)                                                   (2000/C 233/20)
                           (2000/C 233/19)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         In Case C-98/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
                                                                            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                          proceedings pending before that court between Commissio-
                                                                            ners of Customs & Excise plc and Midland Bank plc — on the
In Case C-50/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of
de Grande Instance, Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the                  legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ,
proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Marie                    English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and Article 17(2), (3) and
Podesta and Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs               (5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others — on the interpreta-                  on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
tion of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of                to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC)              uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)— the Court
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                    (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rappor-                the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
teur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                 Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it has ruled:                           8 June 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-445/08: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Kurt Wierer v Land Baden-Württemberg (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Driving licence — Directive 91/439/EEC — Withdrawal of national licence for drunk driving — Failure to produce a medical-psychological certificate which is required in order to obtain a new licence in the host Member State — Licence issued in another Member State — Verification by the host Member of State of the residence condition — Possibility of relying on the information provided by the holder of the licence by virtue of his obligation to cooperate under the national law of the host Member State — Possibility of carrying out investigations in the issuing Member State)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/17

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Kurt Wierer v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-445/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Driving licence - Directive 91/439/EEC - Withdrawal of national licence for drunk driving - Failure to produce a medical-psychological certificate which is required in order to obtain a new licence in the host Member State - Licence issued in another Member State - Verification by the host Member of State of the residence condition - Possibility of relying on the information provided by the holder of the licence by virtue of his obligation to cooperate under the national law of the host Member State - Possibility of carrying out investigations in the issuing Member State)
   2009/C 282/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kurt Wierer

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise a driving licence issued in another Member in disregard of the residence condition — Possibility for the host Member State, for the purposes of examining compliance with the residence condition at the time of issuing the driving licence, to rely on information which was provided by the driving licence holder in the course of administrative procedures or court proceedings by virtue of his obligation to cooperate, or, where appropriate, to conduct investigations in the issuing Member State — Holder who has had his national licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and who has been unable to produce the medical-psychological report which is required in order to obtain a new licence in his State of residence

      Operative part

   Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is precluded from refusing, within its territory, to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State to a person who has earlier, in the host Member State, had his previous driving licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and when that second licence has been obtained after any period in which he is forbidden to apply for a new licence, if it transpires:

               —

               that, on the basis of the explanations and information provided by the holder of that licence in the course of administrative procedures or court proceedings pursuant to an obligation to cooperate imposed on him under the national law of the host Member State, the condition of residence was not observed by the Member State which issued that licence,

         or

               —

               that information obtained during investigations conducted by the national authorities and courts of the host Member State in the issuing Member State is not incontestable information from the issuing Member State attesting that the holder was not normally resident in the territory of that State when it issued a driving licence.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.02.2009.


title: Case C-174/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Natuur en Milieu v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Authorisation to place plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC — Article 8 — Active substance named  aldicarb  — Validity of Article 2(3) of Decision 2003/199/EC)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/26

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Natuur en Milieu v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
   (Case C-174/05) (1)

   (Authorisation to place plant protection products on the market - Directive 91/414/EEC - Article 8 - Active substance named ‘aldicarb’ - Validity of Article 2(3) of Decision 2003/199/EC)
   (2006/C 131/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Natuur en Milieu

      Defendant: College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

      Joined party: Bayer CropScience BV
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Validity of Article 2(3) of Council Decision 2003/199/EC of 18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of aldicarb in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2003 L 76, p. 21)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Examination of the question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2(3) of Council Decision 2003/199/EC of 18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of aldicarb in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-543/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/18

         Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-543/07)
   (2008/C 37/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national law expired on 5 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.


title: Case T-88/07: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Fabryka Samochodòw Osobowych v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/66

      Order of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Fabryka Samochodòw Osobowych v Commission
      (Case T-88/07) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/118)
      Language of the case: Polish
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 117, 29.5.2007.


title: Case C-82/08: Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/23

         Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-82/08)
   (2008/C 92/44)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC (1) of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, and in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for the transposition of Directive 2003/72/EC into national law expired on 18 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 25.


title: Case T-336/12: Order of the General Court of 18 February 2013 — Klizli v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/26

         Order of the General Court of 18 February 2013 — Klizli v Council
   (Case T-336/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 108/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yousef Klizli (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Z. Garkova-Lyutskanova, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-351/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/44

         Appeal brought on 10 July 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

   (Case C-351/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Total SA, ELF Aquitaine SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 in Case T-470/11;

               —

               declare the action brought before the General Court to be inadmissible;

               —

               order the respondents in the appeal to pay all of the costs pertaining to the present proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward the following three grounds.
   According to the first and second grounds of appeal, the judgment under appeal wrongly rejects the Commission’s submission that the action is inadmissible. In the context of the first ground of appeal, the Commission argues that the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the letters of 24 June and 8 July 2011 from the Commission’s accountant produced binding legal effects. The accountant’s letters, it submits, are in fact mere requests for payment in implementation of the Methacrylates decision and pave the way for the potential enforcement of that decision following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-217/06 (1), which reduced the amount of the fine imposed on Arkema, whereas the judgment delivered on the same day in Case T-206/06 (2) (subsequently upheld by the order of the Court of Justice in Case C-421/11 P (3)) upheld the fines imposed on the present respondents. The accountant’s letters are not yet an enforcement measure and therefore do not set out a ‘final position’ of the Commission. Moreover, the accountant’s letters do not produce binding legal effects distinct from those of the Methacrylates decision, which decision is no longer amenable to challenge following the exhaustion of the respondents’ remedies. The second ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal fails to respect the principles of lis pendens and res judicata, resulting from the order of the Court of Justice in Case C-421/11 P.
   Lastly, the third ground of appeal, which concerns contradictory reasoning, is presented in the alternative, should the Court reject the first and second grounds. The General Court, it is submitted, incorrectly found in paragraph 113 that the rights of the Commission in relation to both Arkema and the defendants which were jointly and severally liable for payment had been fully satisfied, even though the General Court had correctly noted in paragraph 9 that Arkema regretted not being able to authorise the Commission to withhold a sum of any amount in the event that its action before the EU Courts was successful. That contradictory reasoning, the Commission argues, affects the reasoning of the General Court on the merits of the case and constitutes a sufficient ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal.

      (1)  ECLI:EU:T:2011:251.

      (2)  ECLI:EU:T:2011:250.

      (3)  ECLI:EU:C:2012:60.


title: Case C-245/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2014  — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2014 — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH
   (Case C-245/14)
   2014/C 303/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

      Respondent: Thurner Hotel GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 also where the order for payment was effectively served on him but was issued by a court which lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the information relating to jurisdiction provided in the application form?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Do exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 already exist in accordance with paragraph 25 of European Commission Notice 2004/0055 of 7 February 2006 where the European order for payment was issued on the basis of information provided in the application form which may subsequently prove to be inaccurate, particularly where the jurisdiction of the court depends on that information?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.


title: Case T-139/05: Action brought on 31 March 2005 by Charlotte Becker and Others against the European Parliament

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/35

         Action brought on 31 March 2005 by Charlotte Becker and Others against the European Parliament
   (Case T-139/05)
   (2005/C 132/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 March 2005 by Charlotte Becker, residing in Manton (France), Seamus Killeen, residing in Sutton (Dublin), Robert Payne, residing in Terenure (Dublin), Deirdre Gallagher, residing in Terenure, Paul Van Raij, residing in Overveen (Netherlands), Wilhemus Van Miltenburg, residing in Huizen (Netherlands), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the applicants' pension slips for May 2004, with the exception of Ms Gallagher's, with the effect of applying a weighting at the rate for the capital of their country of residence or, at the very least, a weighting such as will adequately reflect the differences in the cost of living between the places in which the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and thus corresponding with the principle of equivalence,

               —

               as regards Ms Gallagher, annul her payslip for May 2004, with the effect of applying a weighting to the allowance which she receives for being assigned to non-active service, fixed at the rate for the capital of the country of residence or, at the very least, a weighting such as will adequately reflect the differences in the cost of living in the place where the applicant is deemed to incur her expenditure and thus corresponding to the principle of equivalence;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants put forward the same pleas in law and arguments as those put forward in Case T-35/05.


title: Case T-625/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Spa Monopole v EUIPO — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Spa Monopole v EUIPO — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)
   (Case T-625/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE - Earlier Benelux word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 462/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Edenborough, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd is annulled in so far as it rejects the opposition to registration of the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE, in respect of ‘services consisting of the provision of food and drink; cafés restaurants; cafeterias; snack-bars; self-service restaurants; hotel restaurant services; restaurant services; catering and buffet services; bar services; hotel services’ in Class 43 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.

               2)

               EUIPO and YTL Hotels & Properties are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-292/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus
   (Case C-292/12)
   2012/C 243/18
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ragn-Sells AS

      Defendant: Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Are Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary to any of them for a Member State to permit an undertaking which operates a specific waste treatment facility to be granted an exclusive right to process municipal waste in a specified area, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km?

               (b)

               Is Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary thereto for a Member State to regard, first, the collection and transport of waste and, secondly, the processing of waste as services in the general economic interest, but to separate those services from each other, thereby restricting free competition in the waste treatment market?

               (c)

               In a procedure for the award of a concession for the service of collecting and transporting waste, a condition of which is that two undertakings are granted an exclusive right to treat waste in the area designated in the concession agreement, may the applicability of the provisions of competition law in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be excluded?

               (d)

               Is Article 16(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of the principle of proximity, restrict competition and permit the undertaking operating the waste treatment facility nearest to the area in which the waste occurs to be granted an exclusive right to process the waste, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km?

      (1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).


title: Case C-90/10: Action brought on 16 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/25

         Action brought on 16 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-90/10)
   2010/C 113/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to establish conservation priorities in relation to the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region identified by Decision 2002/11/EC, (1) in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, (2) and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt and apply the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disruption to species, ensuring the legal protection of the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites referred to in Decision 2002/11/EC situated in Spanish territory, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In so far as concerns the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region in its territory identified by Decision 2002/11/EC, the Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to:

               —

               satisfy the requirement to establish conservation priorities in accordance with Article 4(4) of the directive, and

               —

               satisfy the requirement to adopt and apply the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disruption to species, ensuring the legal protection of those special areas of conservation, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ 2002 L 5, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case C-196/05: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany)) — Sachsenmilch AG v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheading 0406 10 (fresh cheese) — Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 — Tariff classification of pizza mozzarella in block form that has been stored after its manufacture for one to two weeks at a low temperature)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/9

         Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany)) — Sachsenmilch AG v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   (Case C-196/05) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 0406 10 (fresh cheese) - Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 - Tariff classification of pizza mozzarella in block form that has been stored after its manufacture for one to two weeks at a low temperature)
   (2006/C 178/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sachsenmilch AG

      Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Munchen — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p.1) — Subheading 0406 10 CN (fresh cheese) — Mozzarella for pizza that has been stored after production for one to two weeks at low temperature
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:
   Subheading 0406 10 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to pizza mozzarella in block form that was stored after its manufacture for one to two weeks at 2 to 4 °C unless that storage is sufficient for such mozzarella to undergo a process at the end of which it has acquired one or more new objective characteristics or properties, in particular with regard to its composition, appearance or taste. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case T-363/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Honda Motor Europe v OHIM — SEAT (MAGIC SEAT)

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/27

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Honda Motor Europe v OHIM — SEAT (MAGIC SEAT)
   (Case T-363/06)
   (2007/C 20/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Honda Motor Europe Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Cordell, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seat SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               the decision of the first Board of Appeal dated 7 September 2006 in Case R 960/2005-1 shall be annulled;

               —

               the Office and other parties to the procedure shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the Community word mark ‘MAGIC SEAT’ for goods and services in class 12 — vehicle seats and vehicle seat mechanisms, parts and fittings and accessories for these goods — application No 2 503 902

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SEAT SA

      Mark or sign cited: the national figurative mark ‘SEAT’ for goods and services in class 12

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94
   In support of its submissions, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in its approach to the visual analysis, in effect conferring word-only protection on a composite earlier mark that contained a large and striking device element.
   According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal's phonetic comparison of the marks was allegedly flawed in two respects. First, it failed to appreciate that the word MAGIC in MAGIC SEAT would not be pronounced as a Spanish word and hence the mark as a whole, MAGIC SEAT, would not be pronounced in a Spanish way either. Secondly, it failed to take into account the fact that MAGIC was the first word of the two-word mark, MAGIC SEAT.
   Moreover, the Board of appeal failed to apply the ‘rule of counteraction’ in the current case and therefore failed to take into account the fact, as part of the conceptual analysis, that the earlier Spanish mark, comprising the word SEAT and the large ‘S’ badge device element, would be immediately and clearly understood as designating the Spanish carmaker whereas the mark MAGIC SEAT would not be understood so.
   In addition, on the question of conceptual dissimilarity, the applicant contends that the Board failed to take into any account the linguistic evidence supplied by the applicant as to how Spanish consumers were likely to see the words MAGIC SEAT.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Board failed to appreciate that the category of goods, the features of the relevant market and the attributes of the national consumer for these goods militated against any finding of a likelihood of confusion.
   Finally, the applicant considers that the Board failed to take into account whatsoever the applicant's evidence from the trade as to how products of this sort are marketed.


title: Case T-332/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential tariff — Decision initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Admissibility — Notion of State aid — New aid or existing aid — Advantage — Statement of reasons — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
   (Case T-332/06) (1)

   (State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Admissibility - Notion of State aid - New aid or existing aid - Advantage - Statement of reasons - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)
   2009/C 113/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold, F. Salerno and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan, E. Righini and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/C 214/03, notified to the Italian Republic by letter of 19 July 2006, initiating the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, concerning State aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06) — Preferential electricity tariff to energy intensive industries in Italy, in so far as that decision relates to the electricity tariffs applicable to the two primary aluminium plants owned by Alcoa Trasformazioni.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-68/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/57

         Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)
   (Case T-68/17)
   (2017/C 104/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘teaespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 475

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 1099/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;

               —

               order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;

               —

               order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.