title: Case T-561/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v EUIPO — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA uniR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA uniR — Earlier EU word mark UNIRIOJA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v EUIPO — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA uniR)
   (Case T-561/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA uniR - Earlier EU word mark UNIRIOJA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 022/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa and A. Porras Fernandez-Toledano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Universidad de la Rioja (Logroño, Spain) (represented initially by: J. Diez-Hochleitner Rodríguez, D. Garayalde Niño and A. I. Alpera Plazas, lawyers, and subsequently by J Diez-Hochleitner Rodríguez and D Garayalde Niño

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2015 (Case R 1914/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Universidad de la Rioja and Universidad Internacional de la Rioja.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case T-213/11 P(I): Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — College of staff representatives of the EIB and Others v Bömcke (Appeal — Civil Service — Application to intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal — Calculation of time limit — Out of time)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — College of staff representatives of the EIB and Others v Bömcke
   (Case T-213/11 P(I)) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Application to intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal - Calculation of time limit - Out of time)
   2011/C 282/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg); Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); Manuel Sutil (Nondkeil, France); Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg); Marie-Christel Heger (Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Wilson, A. Senes and B. Entringer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Eberhard Bömcke (Athus, Belgium) (represented by: D. Lagasse, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 17 March 2011 in Case F-95/10 INT Bömcke v EIB, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank, Jean-Pierre Bodson, Evangelos Kourgias, Manuel Sutil, Patrick Vanhoudt and Marie-Christel Heger are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case F-60/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — Birkhoff v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Child prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood — Application for extension of payment of the allowance — Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Maximum income of the child as a condition for extending the payment of the allowance — Costs deductible from that income)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/60

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — Birkhoff v Commission
   (Case F-60/09) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Child prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood - Application for extension of payment of the allowance - Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Maximum income of the child as a condition for extending the payment of the allowance - Costs deductible from that income)
   2010/C 346/119
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for an extension of the payment of the dependent child allowance under Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Birkhoff to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 50.


title: Case C-307/04 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2004 by SEC Corporation against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 between Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and others and the Commission of the European Communities.

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/1

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2004 by SEC Corporation against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 between Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and others and the Commission of the European Communities.
   (Case C-307/04 P)
   (2004/C 239/02)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 between Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and others and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July 2004 by SEC Corporation (case T-251/01 (1)), established in Amagasaki, Hyogo (Japan), represented by K. Platteau, lawyer.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               (a)

               set aside in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it determines that the Commission was entitled to use worldwide product turnover as the differentiating factor when setting the basic amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant;

               (b)

               annul Article 3 of the Decision (2), as modified by the Court of First Instance, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 6.138 million on the Appellant, or, at least, substantially reduce this fine further to such amount the Court deems appropriate; and

               (c)

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1)

               Violation of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and the principles of non bis in idem and of fairness by holding that the Commission, in setting the fine imposed on SEC and in the context of the particular features of this case, is not obliged to take account of the sanctions previously imposed on SEC by the US competition authorities based on the same facts.

               2)

               Violation of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and the principles of fairness and proportionality, by holding that the Commission is entitled to differentiate the basic amount of the fine of the parties involved on the basis of the worldwide product turnover only, with disregard to the scope of SEC's activities in the EEA.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 2.2.2002, p. 12.

      (2)  Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes (OJ 2002, L 100, p. 1).


title: Case C-136/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission Wien (Austria), lodged on 18 March 2011 — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission Wien (Austria), lodged on 18 March 2011 — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
   (Case C-136/11)
   2011/C 173/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring tribunal

   Schienen-Control Kommission Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Complainant: Westbahn Management GmbH

      Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (1) to be interpreted as meaning that information on main connecting services must include, in addition to scheduled departure times, notification of delays to or cancellations of those connecting services?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure [and safety certification] (2) to be interpreted, in the light of Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, as meaning that the infrastructure manager is under an obligation to make real-time data on other railway undertakings’ trains available to railway undertakings in a non-discriminatory manner, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Annex II, Part II, to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.

      (2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 24 April 1997 in Case C-39/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels v. Free Record Shop BV, Free Record Shop Holding NV (Article 85 of the EC Treaty - Article 5 of Council Regulation No 17 - Provisional validity of agreements pre-dating Regulation No 17 and notified to the Commission - Provisional validity of agreements amended after notification)

text:
28 . 6 . 97           I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 24 April 1997                                                         of 7 May 1997
in Case C-39/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                in Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ): Koninklijke                 C-324/94 ( references for a preliminary ruling from the
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                          French Cour de Cassation): criminal proceedings against
Boekhandels v. Free Record Shop BV, Free Record Shop                                       Jacques Pistre and Others (')
                            Holding NV (')
                                                                         (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of
 (Article 85 of the EC Treaty — Article 5 of Council                     geographical indications and designations of origin for
Regulation No 17 — Provisional validity of agreements                    agricultural products and foodstuffs — Articles 30 and 36
pre-dating Regulation No 17 and notified to the                          of the EC Treaty — Domestic legislation on the use of the
 Commission — Provisional validity of agreements                         description 'mountain ' for agricultural products and
                    amended after notification)                                                        foodstuffs)
                             ( 97/C 199/ 11 )                                                       ( 97/C 199/ 12 )
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-39/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177               In Joined Cases C-321 /94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                       C-324/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
( District Court) Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in                 EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court of
the proceedings pending before that court between                        Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen                  proceedings pending before that court against Jacques
des Boekhandels and Free Record Shop BV, Free Record                     Pistre ( C-321 /94 ), Michele Barthes ( C-322/94 ), Yves
Shop Holding NV — on the interpretation of Article 85 of                 Milhau ( C-323/94 ) and Didier Oberti ( C-324/94 ) — on
the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation No 17 of                         the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation
6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing                           ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special                   geographical indications and designations of origin for
Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended by Council                         agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7.
Regulation No 59 of 3 July 1962 ( OJ, English Special                    1992, p. 1 ) and of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty —
Edition 1959-1962 , p. 249 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),               the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( President of the                de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann
Chamber), L. Sevon, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward                          ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M.
( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                       Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for                 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 April 1997, in                 judgment on 7 May 1997, in which it has ruled:
which it has ruled :
                                                                         1 . Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081 /92 of 14 July
1 . The provisional validity of a restrictive agreement                        1992 on the protection of geographical indications
      which was concluded before the entry into force of                      and designations of origin for agricultural products
      Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First                      and foodstuffs does not preclude application of
      Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the                       domestic rules, such as those laid down by Article 34
      Treaty, as amended by Council Regulation No 59 of                       of Law No 85—30 of 9 January 1985 and Decree
     3 July 1 962 and which was notified to the                               No 88—194 of 26 February 1988, which lay down
      Commission before 1 November 1962 expires only                          the conditions governing the use of the description
      when the Commission has taken either a positive or a                    'mountain ' in relation to agricultural products and
      negative decision on that agreement.                                    foodstuffs.
2 . A duly notified restrictive agreement concluded before               2 . Article 30 of the EC Treaty precludes application of
      the entry into force of Regulation No 1 7, as amended                   domestic rules, such as those laid down by Article 34
      by Regulation No 59, enjoys provisional validity only                   of Law 85—30 and Decree No 88—194, which
      if its terms remain unchanged or, in the event of                       restrict use of the description 'mountain ' to products
     amendments, if these do not have the effect of                           manufactured on national territory and prepared from
      reinforcing or extending its restrictive effects.                       domestic raw materials.
(') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Case T-424/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Dosenbach-Ochsner v OHIM — Sisma (Representation of elephants in a rectangle) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing elephants in a rectangle — Earlier international and national figurative marks representing an elephant and earlier national word mark elefanten — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character of the earlier marks)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Dosenbach-Ochsner v OHIM — Sisma (Representation of elephants in a rectangle)
   (Case T-424/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing elephants in a rectangle - Earlier international and national figurative marks representing an elephant and earlier national word mark elefanten - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character of the earlier marks)
   2012/C 80/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport (Dietikon, Switzerland) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sisma SpA (Mantova, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2010 (Case R 1638/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport and Sisma SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 July 2010 (Case R 1638/2008-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport;

               3.

               Orders Sisma SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-248/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PURE POWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/70

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER)
   (Case T-248/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PURE POWER - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/154
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC (Warrenville, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas and B. Reiter, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2011 (Case R 2310/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign PURE POWER as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-679/13: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — AEMN v Parliament

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/65

         Order of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — AEMN v Parliament
   (Case T-679/13) (1)

   2014/C 409/88
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-94/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/44

         Action brought on 13 February 2017 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)
   (Case T-94/17)
   (2017/C 112/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by: V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘tigha’ — Application for registration No 11 459 617

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 in Case R 693/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2005 in Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for restitutio in integrum — Appeal before a Board of Appeal — Costs of proceedings — Apportionment)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 12 July 2005
   in Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for restitutio in integrum - Appeal before a Board of Appeal - Costs of proceedings - Apportionment)
   (2005/C 229/50)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer, residing in Bergisch-Gladbach (Germany), represented by I. Reese, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being KoKa Verwaltung GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by T.E. Lampel, lawyer — action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2003 (Case R 93/2003-2) in so far as that decision orders that the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal be apportioned — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-498/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NAMMU — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22(2) to (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)
   (Case T-498/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark NAMMU - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22(2) to (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2015/C 034/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, T. Boddien, and M. Maier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vincci Hoteles SA (Alcobendas, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 611/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Vincci Hoteles SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-125/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 15 March 2005 in VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 15 March 2005 in VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S
   (Case C-125/05)
   (2005/C 143/25)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Denmark) of 15 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S and Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 (1) of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95’) to be interpreted as meaning that reasons must be stated for a supplier's termination of an agreement with a dealer on one year's notice which go beyond the supplier's reference to that provision?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               What requirement may be placed under Community law on the content of such a statement of reasons and when must such a statement be provided?

               3.

               What is the consequence of not providing a proper or timely statement of reasons?

               4.

               Is Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 to be interpreted as requiring that the termination of an agreement with a dealer on one year's notice must be effected on the basis of a reorganisation plan already drawn up by the supplier?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
               What requirement can be placed under Community law on the content and form of a reorganisation plan drawn up by the supplier and when must the reorganisation plan be submitted?

               6.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative:
               Must the supplier inform the dealer whose contract has been terminated of the content of the reorganisation plan, and when and in what form must notification to the dealer be effected in a particular case?

               7.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative:
               What is the consequence of a reorganisation plan not fulfilling the requirement which may be placed on the form and content of such a plan?

               8.

               According to the Danish version of Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95, the supplier's termination of an agreement with a dealer on one year's notice presupposes that ‘… det er nødvendigt at foretage en gennemgribende reorganisering af hele forhandlernettet eller en del heraf …’ (it is necessary to reorganise radically the whole or part of the network). The word ‘necessary’ appears in all the language versions of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 but the word ‘gennemgribende’ (radically) appears only in the Danish version.
               In this context:
               What requirement may be placed on the nature of the reorganisation so that the supplier is able to terminate the dealer's contract on one year's notice under Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95?

               9.

               In assessing whether the conditions — for the supplier to be able to terminate the agreement on one year's notice under Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 — are satisfied, is it of importance what the economic consequences would be for the supplier if it had terminated the dealer's contract on two years' notice?

               10.

               Who bears the burden of proving that the conditions for the supplier being able to terminate the agreement on one year's notice under Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 are satisfied, and how can such a burden of proof be lifted?

               11.

               Is Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions — for the supplier to be able to terminate the agreement on one year's notice under that provision — can be satisfied simply on the grounds that the implementation of Group Exemption Regulation No 1400/2002 in itself could have necessitated a radical reorganisation of the supplier's dealer network?

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 29.6.1995, p. 25.


title: Case F-65/08: Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Kipp v Europol

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/55

         Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Kipp v Europol
   (Case F-65/08)
   (2008/C 285/98)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Michael Kipp (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of 4 October 2007 by which Europol informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering him a permanent post
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 4 October 2007 by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering him a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint against the earlier decision and the decision of 12 June 2008, which follows on from that of 4 October 2007;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-185/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 22 April 2015 — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing, GmbH

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 22 April 2015 — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing, GmbH
   (Case C-185/15)
   (2015/C 254/05)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marjan Kostanjevec

      Defendant: F&S Leasing, GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘counter-claim’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as extending also to an application lodged as a counter-claim in accordance with national law after, in review proceedings, a judgment that had become final and enforceable was set aside in proceedings on the respondent’s main claim and that same case has been referred back to the court of first instance for fresh examination, but the appellant, in his counter-claim alleging unjust enrichment, seeks refund of the amount which he was obliged to pay on the basis of the judgment set aside delivered in the proceedings on the respondent’s main claim?

               2.

               Must the term ‘matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer’, used in Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, be interpreted as extending to a situation in which the consumer lodges his own application, whereby he pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, by way of counter-claim for the purposes of national law, linked to the main claim, which nevertheless relates to a case concerning a consumer contract in accordance with the abovementioned provision of Regulation No 44/2001, and whereby the consumer-appellant seeks refund of the amount he was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the respondent’s main claim, and therefore refund of the amount deriving from a case concerning consumer contracts?

               3.

               If, in the case described above, jurisdiction cannot be based either on the jurisdictional rules for counter-claims or on the jurisdictional rules for consumer contracts:

                           (a)

                           must the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending to an action whereby the appellant pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, but that is submitted as a counter-claim under national law, linked to the respondent’s main claim, which relates to the contractual relationship between the parties, when the purpose of the claim alleging unjust enrichment is to obtain refund of the amount the appellant was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the main claim brought by the respondent, and therefore refund of the amount deriving from a contractual case?
                           If the foregoing question can be answered in the affirmative:

                           (b)

                           in the case described above, must jurisdiction based on the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be examined on the basis of the rules governing the performance of obligations deriving from a claim alleging unjust enrichment?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1-23.


20.9.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 226/15
According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the                  Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined                                 (2003/C 226/28)
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level            By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the              register of Case C-131/02: Commission of the European
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other              Communities v Republic of Austria.
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,
    p. 1.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/29)
Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of                    By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/02: Commission of the European
                         (Case C-345/03)                                Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                         (2003/C 226/27)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/30)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
1.   declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 register of Case C-407/02: Commission of the European
     Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            Communities v Hellenic Republic.
     of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehi-
     cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
     obligations under that directive;
2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/31)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
21 April 2002.                                                          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-10/03: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Republic of Finland.
(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Case C-324/06: Action brought on 24 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/28

         Action brought on 24 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-324/06)
   (2006/C 224/52)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Portugal
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC (1) of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive expired on 30 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81.


title: Case C-555/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia — Spain) — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Commercial transactions between private undertakings and public authorities — National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia — Spain) — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud
   (Case C-555/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Commercial transactions between private undertakings and public authorities - National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs))
   (2017/C 112/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IOS Finance EFC SA

      Defendant: Servicio Murciano de Salud

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, and Article 7(2) and (3) thereof in particular, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a creditor to waive his right to interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs in exchange for immediate payment of the principal amount of debts owed, on condition that such a waiver is freely agreed to, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case C-140/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Prevention and elimination of the depositing of excavated earth and rubble and other waste — Landfill — Failure to adopt measures for the disposal and storage of that waste — Use of judicial remedies)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-140/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Prevention and elimination of the depositing of excavated earth and rubble and other waste - Landfill - Failure to adopt measures for the disposal and storage of that waste - Use of judicial remedies))
   (2015/C 311/10)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and M. Žebre, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: J. Morela, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               (1)

               Declares that the Republic of Slovenia,

                           —

                           by authorising the deposit of excavated earth on plot No 115/1 in the municipal land register of Teharje (Bukovžlak), without ensuring that other waste had not previously or at the same time been deposited at that site, and since no other measure has been adopted to remove from that site the waste not covered by the permit issued, that site must be considered as constituting an illegal landfill which does not comply with the conditions and requirements laid down, first, by Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and secondly, by Articles 5(3)(e), 6, read in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC, 7 to 9, 11 and 12 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and by Annexes I to III to that directive, and

                           —

                           by failing, since April 2009, to adopt sufficient measures to prevent, and then to remove the deposit of excavated earth classifiable as waste under item number 17 05 06 (dredging spoil other than those mentioned in 17 05 05) and item number 17 05 05 (dredging spoil containing dangerous substances) at the site of construction work on the municipal infrastructure for the commercial area at Gaberje-jug, so that that site must also be considered to be an illegal landfill which does not comply with the abovementioned provisions of Directives 1999/31 and 2008/98 or with Articles 12, 15 and 17 of Directive 2008/98,
                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under all of those provisions;

               (2)

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case F-47/13: Action brought on 17 May 2013 — ZZ v Council

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/63

         Action brought on 17 May 2013 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-47/13)
   2013/C 207/110
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials in function group AD proposed for promotion in 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 20 July 2012 No 63/12 of the General Secretariat of the Council concerning the list of officials proposed for promotion during the 2012 session in which the applicant’s name did not appear and annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 February 2011;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages, with default and compensatory interest at 6.75 % for the material and non-material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-470/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Cham v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/36

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Cham v Council
   (Case T-470/15)
   (2015/C 337/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cham Holding (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-399/15: Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Morgan & Morgan v OHIM — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/56

         Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Morgan & Morgan v OHIM — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)
   (Case T-399/15)
   (2015/C 311/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers S.r.l. (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti and F. Caricato, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Ciudad de Panamá, Panama)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Morgan & Morgan’ — Application for registration No 11 596 087

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2015 in Case R 1657/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the Appellant is admissible and well founded;

               —

               reform the contested decision;

               —

               give way to a definitive registration of the Community Trademark no. 11 596 087 in the name of Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers s.r.l. in class 36;

               —

               order OHIM to pay fees and cost of the three proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-429/99: Action brought on 5 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 34/11
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:                  3. Is the priority of an infringement action brought by the
                                                                            claimant in his own name but on behalf of the patent
     Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply if a refugee               owner preserved if the patent at issue is transferred to the
     in employment and members of his family travelled from                 claimant in the course of the proceedings and he is
     a third country to a Member State direct, without moving               thenceforth no longer asserting the rights of another but
     within the Community?                                                  his own rights as owner of the patent?
3. Does Community law preclude a national rule which                    4. Does the priority of an action for a negative declaration
     makes entitlement to family benefits conditional on the                brought against the owner of the patent, intended to clarify
     actual grant of a right of residence, even if the refugee has          whether a certain product infringes his patent, continue to
     been granted the right to asylum?                                      apply if the patent at issue is transferred during the
                                                                            proceedings and the action for a negative declaration is
                                                                            thereupon directed against the new owner of the patent?
(1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                 Action brought on 5 November 1999 by the Commission
gericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 30 September               of the European Communities against the Portuguese
1999 in the case of Connaught Laboratories Inc. v                                                   Republic
(1) SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and (2) SmithK-
         line Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.
                                                                                (Case C-429/99)
                         (Case C-426/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/21)
                          (2000/C 34/20)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice on 5 November 1999 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        of the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                        Vieira and Barry Doherty, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
(Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 30 September 1999,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
which was received at the Court Registry on 3 November
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Connaught
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Laboratories Inc. v (1) SmithKIine Beecham Pharma GmbH
and (2) SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.
on the following questions on the interpretation of the
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
first paragraph of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by                — Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
the Accession Conventions of 9 October 1978 (OJ 1978                        obligations under the second indent of Article 2(4) of
L 304, p. 1), 25 October 1982 (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and                     Directive 90/388/EEC (1) as amended by Directive
26 May 1989 (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1):                                          96/19/EC (2);
1. Does a cause of action pursued in an alternative claim               — Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     already become pending (‘anhängig’) with the event which
     under national procedural law in principle makes it a lis
     pendens (in this case, service of the summons), or does it
     become a lis pendens for the purposes of Article 21 of the         Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
     Brussels Convention only at the time when (additionally)
     the procedural condition subject to which the alternative
     claim is put forward is fulfilled?                                 The Commission considers that ‘call-back’ services are not
                                                                        voice telephony services within the meaning of Commission
2. Who is to be regarded as the ‘party’ where the claimant,             Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the
     on the basis of an authority to bring proceedings given by         markets for telecommunications services and that therefore
     the substantive owner of the right, asserts the latter’s rights    Article 3 of Commission Decision 97/310/EC does not grant
     (the rights of another) in his own name (‘Prozessstand-            any additional implementation period regarding the supply of
     schaft’) — the nominal claimant bringing the action or the         such services, which should already have been liberalised in
     substantive owner of the rights?                                   Portugal upon the entry into force of that directive. Portugal
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
may not, without infringing the directive, adopt legal pro-                 Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Com-
visions which prohibit such a service. Article 47(1)(a) of                  mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
Decree-Law No 240/97 is therefore contrary to the directive                                          guese Republic
in so far as it prohibits the provision of ‘call-back’ services.
                                                                                (Case C-435/99)
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
     tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L                                (2000/C 34/23)
     192, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
     Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996 L 74,               the Court of Justice on 12 November 1999 by the Commission
     p. 13).                                                                of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström,
                                                                            Legal Adviser, and António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,
                                                                            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                            (a) Declare that, by not forwarding to the Commission the
                                                                                reports needed to comply with:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6, by
orders of that court of 30 September 1999 and 14 Octo-                          — Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of
ber 1999 in the cases of (1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against                             4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Trento; and (2) NTB SpA                                  substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
(formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA) against Ufficio                                   the Community;
                Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento
                                                                                — Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC (2) of
                                                                                20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide
                   (Cases C-433/99 and C-434/99)                                    industry, as amended by Directive 83/29/EEC (3);
                            (2000/C 34/22)                                      — Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC (4) of
                                                                                18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
                                                                                protection or improvement in order to support fish
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              life, as amended by the 1985 Act of Accession;
European Communities by orders of the Commissione Tributa-
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1999                           — Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC (5) of
and 14 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on                              17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
11 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of                          against pollution caused by certain dangerous sub-
(1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di                           stances;
Trento; and (2) NTB SpA (formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA)
against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento on the                       — Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
following question:                                                                 Council Directive 82/176/EEC(6) of 22 March 1982
                                                                                on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
                                                                                discharges by the chlor-alkali;
‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                             — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC (7)
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the taxable                           of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality
base of the tax on net assets consisting of a company’s capital                     objectives for cadmium discharges;
disclosed annually by the balance sheet which has already
borne the tax on contributions of 1 %?’                                         — Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC (8) of
                                                                                8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
                                                                                for mercury discharges by sectors other than the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).                                 chlor-alkali electrolysis industry;
                                                                                — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC (9)
                                                                                of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objec-
                                                                                tives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane;


title: Case C-531/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2015 — Elda Otero Ramos v Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2015 — Elda Otero Ramos v Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
   (Case C-531/15)
   (2015/C 429/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elda Otero Ramos

      Defendant: Servizo Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) applicable to the situation of risk during breastfeeding referred to in Article 26(4), in conjunction with Article 26(3), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which was adopted to transpose into Spanish law Article 5(3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can the existence of risks to breastfeeding when working as a nurse in a hospital accident and emergency department, established by means of a report issued by a doctor who is also the director of the accident and emergency department of the hospital where the worker is employed, be considered to be facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can the fact that the job performed by the worker is included in the list of risk-free jobs drawn up by the employer after consulting the workers’ representatives and the fact that the preventive medicine/prevention of occupational risks department of the hospital concerned has issued a declaration that the worker is fit for work, without those documents including any further information regarding how those conclusions were reached, be considered to prove, in every case and without possibility of challenge, that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC?

               4.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 is answered in the negative, which of the parties — the applicant worker or the defendant employer — has, in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC, the burden of proving, once it has been established that performance of the job creates risks to the mother or the breast-fed child, (1) that the adjustment of working conditions or working hours is not feasible or that, despite such adjustment, the working conditions are liable to have an adverse effect on the health of the pregnant worker or breast-fed child (Article 26(2), in conjunction with Article 26(4), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which transposes Article 5(2) of Directive 92/85/EEC), and (2) that it is not technically or objectively feasible to move the worker to another job or that such a move cannot reasonably be required on substantiated grounds (Article 26(3), in conjunction with Article 26(4), of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which transposes Article 5(3) of Directive 92/85/EEC)?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.


title: Case C-109/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 February 2012 — Laboratoires Lyocentre

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 February 2012 — Laboratoires Lyocentre
   (Case C-109/12)
   2012/C 133/36
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Laboratoires Lyocentre

      Other parties: Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a definition given in one Member State in accordance with the Devices Directive 93/42/EEC (1), by which a product is regarded as a healthcare device or accessory in accordance with the Devices Directive and is provided with a CE marking, preclude the competent national authority of another Member State from defining the product concerned, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effects, as a medicinal product in accordance with Article 1(2)(b) of the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC? (2)

               2.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can that competent national authority define the product as a medicinal product observing only the procedures under the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC or is it necessary, prior to initiating procedures under the Medicinal Products Directive to define the product as a medicinal product, to follow the safeguard clause procedure in Article 8 of the Devices Directive or to comply with the provisions of Article 18 concerning an unduly affixed CE marking?

               3.

               Does the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC, the Devices Directive 93/42/EEC or European Union legislation otherwise (including the protection of human health and life and consumer protection) preclude products containing the same substance and having the same functions from being on the market in the same Member State both as medicinal products in accordance with the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC, requiring a marketing authorisation, and as healthcare devices or accessories in accordance with the Devices Directive 93/42/EEC?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.


title: Case F-141/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Handwritten signature on the fax different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-141/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Handwritten signature on the fax different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 252/90
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s claim for payment of arrears if remuneration owing for the period from September to December 2010 and January 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 25.


title: Case T-442/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Council

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/39

         Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Council
   (Case T-442/12)
   2012/C 366/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst and S. Van Cutsem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 182, p. 1) in so far as it relates to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and an infringement of Article 2(7)(c), first indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by rejecting the market economy treatment claim of the applicant on the basis of alleged distortion of the price of the raw material benzene. The Union institutions committed a manifest error of appraisal as they compared the prices of benzene produced from coke with benzene produced from petroleum, and based their assessment on an export duty on benzene, which they acknowledged was not in force. In addition, the institutions infringed Article 2(7)(c), first indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by considering that the absence of VAT refund on exports of benzene constituted significant State interference in the applicant’s business decisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and infringement of Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 since the Council should have granted market economy treatment to the applicant during the interim review and therefore erroneously concluded that the circumstances with regard to dumping have changed significantly and that these changes were of a lasting nature.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the duty to give reasons, Article 296 TFEU and Articles 6(7), 11(3), 14(2) and 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by failing to take into account and state the reasons for rejection of the comments and evidence provided by the applicant and by failing to unequivocally state its reasoning concerning the alleged distortion of the price of the raw material benzene.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by failing to take a decision on market economy treatment within three months from the initiation of the investigation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and the rights of the defence by refusing to provide disclosure of the details on the basis of which the normal value was calculated.


title: Case T-335/08: Action brought on 14 August 2008 — BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/39

         Action brought on 14 August 2008 — BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission
   (Case T-335/08)
   (2008/C 272/79)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision C(2008) 869 final of 11 March 2008 on state aid C-15/2007 (ex NN 20/2007), implemented by Italy ‘concerning tax incentives in favour of certain credit institutions undergoing company reorganisation’

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants challenge the provision whereby Italian Law No 350/2003, in the part instituting a special system of tax realignment (the ‘special system’) for the assets of certain credit institutions resulting from reorganisations carried out under Law No 218 of 30 July 1990 (‘the Amato law’) was declared incompatible with Article 87 of the EC Treaty on state aid. According to the Commission, the unlawfulness on the special system under Article 87 of the Treaty is based on the assumption that, by that system, the Italian legislature granted a ‘selective’ tax advantage solely to banking institutions concerned by the reorganisations referred to in the Amato law, without providing similar benefits for other institutions and other undertakings in general.
   In support of its arguments, the applicants maintain that the Commission erroneously held that the special system of realignment granted an economic advantage to the beneficiary companies and thus a form of unlawful aid. In reality, the system did not confer a tax advantage, but merely constituted an optional system for which companies might opt in anticipation of the payment of tax on the basis of a replacement rate.
   Even if the system in question did confer on the undertakings some form of advantage, it did not constitute a state aid because it was not selective in character. The tax system in question constituted a coherent solution in relation to the general taxation system and was based on objective criteria, namely to allow those credit institutions concerned by the privatisations to realign the contributions pursuant to the Amato law through the imposition of a rate taking account of both the previous partial taxation on increases in value already recorded and the other inelasticities in connection with those contributions; inconveniences not affecting all other undertakings — unlike banks concerned by the contributions pursuant to Law No 350/2003 — which had received contributions in a context different from that law, and for which a differently-functioning realignment system was fully justified.
   Secondly, the Commission's decision is vitiated by a glaring defect of reasoning arising from the erroneous conviction that Law No 350/2003 did not provide for any general realignment system. Incorrectly holding that there was no general realignment system to be compared with the special system complained of, the Commission failed to make any comparison between the two systems in order to assess all the factors capable of having an impact on the overall tax burdens proper to each system.
   According to the applicants, even where a comparison between the two systems was made on the basis of such factors, it is obvious that, in comparison with the general system, the special system confers practically no tax advantage in terms of the applicable rate.


title: Case T-856/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment and the principle of sound administration)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE)
   (Case T-856/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment and the principle of sound administration))
   (2017/C 256/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rare Hospitality International, Inc. (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: I. Lazaro Betancor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 (Case R 2149/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of word sign LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rare Hospitality International, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-56/11: Action brought on 25 January 2011 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/23

         Action brought on 25 January 2011 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission
   (Case T-56/11)
   2011/C 89/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark), Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden), and SAS AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Kofmann, B. Creve, lawyers, I. Forrester, QC, J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision in whole or in part;

               —

               declare that the applicants bear no responsibility for the global single, continuous and complex infringement as described in the decision, and, if necessary, annul the decision to the extent that it may find the applicants so responsible;

               —

               further, or in the alternative, reduce the level of the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               make such other order as may be appropriate in the circumstance of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Application for annulment of the Decision of the European Commission of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in Case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight concerning the coordination of various elements of the price to be charged for airfreight services in relation to fuel surcharge, security surcharge and the payment of commission on surcharges to freight forwarders
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements, as well as the applicants’ rights to good administration, rights of defence and the general principle of equality of arms, by refusing the applicants access to relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, which the Commission received after notification of its statement of objections, yet (the inculpatory evidence) is relied on in the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the lack of competence in so far as the decision applies Articles 101 TFEU/53 EEA to airfreight services that were inbound into the EEA by applying the effects criterion when this is not relevant to the territorial jurisdiction of Articles 101 TFEU/53 EEA, and in incorrectly applying the implementation criterion to sales outside the EEA.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the conduct in which the applicants were involved, and in concluding that these proved the applicants’ participation in, or knowledge of, a global single and continuous infringement; moreover a number of instances of conduct relied on do not constitute an infringement of the relevant competition laws.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fine was unjustifiably and disproportionately high, taking into account the fact that the applicants were not involved in a global single and continuous infringement, as well as the relevant elements (including mitigating factors) that should have been taken into account when determining the amount of any fine imposed on the applicants.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a selective and arbitrary prosecution of the applicants (and others), while 72 other carriers which, according to the statement of objections and the decision, participated in supposedly illegal meetings or discussions and were never prosecuted. This raises serious issues under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicants’ right to an independent and impartial tribunal enshrined in Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in so far as the decision was adopted by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.