title: Case T-588/15: Action brought on 9 October 2015 — GABO:mi v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/60

         Action brought on 9 October 2015 — GABO:mi v Commission
   (Case T-588/15)
   (2016/C 027/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the contested decisions to be void; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the decisions of the Commission, contained in the e-mail of 29 July 2015 and in the letters of 19 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3466903) and of 28 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3557576), to suspend all payments to the applicant related to FP7 grants managed by the defendant’s Directorate E, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No 602299 regarding Project EU-CERT-ICD and FP7 Grant Agreement No. 260777 regarding project HIP-Trial and Directorate F, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No. 312117 regarding project BIOFECTOR.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are not covered by Article II.5(3)(d) of Annex II to the FP7 Grant Agreement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s true intention is to enforce an illegitimate set-off rather than impose precautionary measures.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on illegitimate discretionary decisions of the defendant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are vitiated on violations of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-102/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2008 — SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2008 — SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd
   (Case C-102/08)
   (2008/C 142/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd
   Questions referred

               1.

               May the Member States ‘treat’ activities of States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law which are exempt from tax under Article 13 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) as activities in which they engage as public authorities within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) only where the Member States make express legal provision to that effect?

               2.

               Can ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes exist only where treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person would lead to significant distortions of competition to the detriment of competing private taxable persons or also where treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person would lead to significant distortions of competition to its detriment?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-387/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/70)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-387/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Amtsgericht Dresden): Volker Donath.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-195/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014  — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-195/14)
   2014/C 245/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

      Defendant: Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

      Question referred

   Is it permissible for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs to give the impression, by means of their appearance, description or pictorial representation, that a particular ingredient is present, even though that ingredient is not in fact present and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients provided for under Article 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1)?

      (1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), as most recently amended by Council Directive 2013/20/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 234).


title: Case T-454/14: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Warimex v EUIPO (STONE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark STONE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Warimex v EUIPO (STONE)
   (Case T-454/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark STONE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Warimex Waren-Import Export Handels-GmbH (Neuried, Germany) (represented by: E. Keller and J. Voogd, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1599/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign STONE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Warimex Waren-Import Export Handels-GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case T-260/03: Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Celltech R&D Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 239/22              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     4.10.2003
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Celltech R&D Limited                    Action brought on 28 July 2003 by Jürgen Schmoldt,
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                      Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptverband
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                         der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V. against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                        (Case T-260/03)
                                                                                (Case T-264/03)
                        (2003/C 239/41)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/42)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: German)
An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                European Communities on 28 July 2003 by Jürgen Schmoldt,
18 July 2003 by Celltech R&D Limited, Slough, (United                     Dallgow-Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH &
Kingdom), represented by D. Alexander, QC, and N. Jenkins,                Co. KG, Bremen (Germany), and Hauptverband der Deutschen
lawyer.                                                                   Bauindustrie e.V., Berlin (Germany), represented by
                                                                          H.-P. Schneider, Hanover.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the             —     annul Article 1 of, and Table 1 of the Annex to,
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                    Commission Decision 2003/312/EC of 9 April 2003,
      Marks and Designs) (‘OHIM’) of 19 May 2003 (Case                          published on 8 May 2003 (OJ 2003 L 114, p. 50) and
      R0659/2002-2) in whole or in part;                                        notified under no C(2003) 1161, on the publication of
                                                                                the reference of European standards relating to the
—     order OHIM to pay the costs of this Application.                          thermal insulation products EN 13162:2001 to EN 1
                                                                                13172:2001, with the result that Commission communi-
                                                                                cation 2001/C 358/08 of 15 December 2001 (OJ 2001
                                                                                C 358, p. 9), in so far as it concerns the products EN
                                                                                13162:2001 to EN 1 13172:2001, and Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 communication 2001/C 120/06 of 22 May 2003 (OJ
                                                                                2003 C 120, p. 17) be removed from the Official Journal
                                                                                of the European Union;
Trade mark concerned:        ‘CELLTECH’ —             Application
                             No 1731678.                                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Products or services:        Pharmaceutical, veterinary and
                             sanitary preparations, compounds
                             and substances (Class 5), surgical,          Pleas in law and main arguments
                             medical, dental and veterinary
                             apparatus        and     instruments
                             (Class 10), research and develop-
                                                                          On 23 May 2001, the European Committee for Standardisation
                             ment, consultancy services, all
                             relating to the biological, medical          adopted ten standards for thermal insulation products, the
                                                                          references for which were published in the Official Journal of
                             and chemical sciences (Class 41).
                                                                          the European Communities of 15 December 2001 (1). The Federal
                                                                          Republic of Germany subsequently objected to, inter alia,
Challenged       decision    Refusal of registration by the               these ten standards for thermal insulation products under
before the Board of          examiner.                                    Article 5(1) of Directive 89/106/EEC ( 2). The objection was
Appeal:                                                                   rejected by the contested decision.
Grounds submitted:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                             the Community Trade Mark Regu-               The applicants rely on both formal and substantive grounds.
                             lation 40/94/EEC.                            The applicants take the view that procedural errors were
                                                                          committed in so far as, contrary to Article 5(1) of Directive
                                                                          89/106, the Standing Committee on Construction failed to
                                                                          issue an opinion and in so far as the statement of reasons in


title: Case T-201/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Rügen Fisch v OHIM — Schwaaner Fischwaren (SCOMBER MIX) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SCOMBER MIX — Absolute grounds of refusal — Descriptive Character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation EC No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Rügen Fisch v OHIM — Schwaaner Fischwaren (SCOMBER MIX)
   (Case T-201/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SCOMBER MIX - Absolute grounds of refusal - Descriptive Character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation EC No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 319/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rügen Fisch AG (Sassnitz, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH (Schwaan, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rügen Fisch AG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-417/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v 3M Italia SpA (Direct taxation — Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters — Abuse of rights — Article 4(3) TEU — Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty — Principle of non-discrimination — State aid — Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v 3M Italia SpA
   (Case C-417/10) (1)

   (Direct taxation - Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters - Abuse of rights - Article 4(3) TEU - Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty - Principle of non-discrimination - State aid - Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law)
   2012/C 151/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: 3M Italia SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Corporation tax — National legislation providing for different rates of tax on the dividends of a company depending on where it is resident — Commercial transaction involving the participation of companies resident in Italy and companies established abroad — Decision of the authorities considering that the taxes payable were applicable in the case of the companies resident abroad — Concept of the abuse of rights as defined in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others — Whether applicable to non-harmonised domestic taxes such as direct taxes

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law, in particular the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, Article 4(3) TEU, the freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, the principle of non-discrimination, the rules on State aid and the obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, in a case such as that in the main proceedings relating to direct taxation, of a provision of national law which provides for proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters to be concluded in return for payment of a sum equivalent to 5 % of the value of the claim, where those proceedings originate in an application made at first instance more than 10 years before the date of entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-202/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia v H3G SpA.

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia v H3G SpA.
   (Case C-202/15)
   (2015/C 262/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia

      Defendant: H3G SpA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Given that the Italian legislature has exercised the power which is accorded by Article 90(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (and, prior to the adoption of that directive, by Article 1(C)(1) and the second sentence of Article 20(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (2)) in relation to the downward adjustment of the taxable amount and the adjustment of the VAT charged on taxable transactions in cases where the consideration agreed by the parties remains totally or partially unpaid, is it compatible with the principles of proportionality and effectiveness, which are guaranteed by the TFEU, and the principle of neutrality which governs the application of VAT, to impose limits that make it impossible or excessively costly for the taxable person to recover the tax on the consideration which remains totally or partially unpaid?

               2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principles set out above that a provision — such as Article 26(2) of Presidential Decree 633/1972 — as applied by the tax authority of the EU Member State, makes the right to recover the tax contingent on proof that insolvency or enforcement procedures have been unsuccessfully conducted, even where such procedures may reasonably be deemed to be uneconomic because of the amount of the claim, the prospects of recovery and the costs of the enforcement or insolvency procedures?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-235/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/23

         Action brought on 29 May 2012 — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)
   (Case T-235/12)
   2012/C 243/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Suisse)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2012 in case R 2506/2010-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings at hand.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark with the description ‘the object of the trade mark is a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle, the length of the blade of grass is approximately three-quarters the height of the bottle’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 33266

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 95588457 of the three-dimensional mark representing a bottle with a strand of grass for goods in class 33; German trade mark registration No 39848553; Polish trade mark registration No 62018; Polish trade mark registration No 62081 for goods in class 33; Polish trade mark registration No 85811 for goods in class 33; Japanese trade mark registration No 2092826 for goods in class 28; French trade mark registration No 98746752 of the three-dimensional mark representing a bottle with a strand of grass for goods in class 33; Non-registered trade mark used in the course of trade in Germany in connection with ‘vodka’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legality;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and consequently also Articles 8(1)(a), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-18/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Kronberger v Parliament (Action for annulment — Act concerning election to the European Parliament — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Kronberger v Parliament
   (Case T-18/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Act concerning election to the European Parliament - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 171/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W. Weh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005 rejecting as unfounded the applicant's challenge relating to the election of Andreas Mölzer as a Member of the European Parliament, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Hans Kronberger is ordered to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-45/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
      or at the very least confidential, information by the                     were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      representative of the European Commission in Marseille;                   cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek
                                                                                frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of
—     order the defendant to pay all the recoverable costs,                     an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
      which amounts to EUR 10 000.
                                                                          —     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
                                                                                implementing the decisions annulment of which is
                                                                                sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     pay the applicants the entire amount which is outstanding
                                                                                as a result of the implementation of the decisions
The applicant claims that, during a meeting in Marseille on                     annulment of which is sought, together with interest at
23 January 2003, a representative of the defendant divulged                     the legal rate;
deceitful or at the very least confidential information. Such
disclosure resulted in damage for which it seeks compensation             —     order the Commission to pay the costs, expenses and fees
in the present application. In support of its arguments, the                    incurred.
applicant alleges non-contractual liability of the defendant in
the context of Article 288 EC and alleged breach of the
confidentiality obligation imposed on the representative of the
defendant by Article 287 EC.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission changing the procedure for
                                                                          calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      In support of the (main and alternative) arguments for
and Others against Commission of the European Com-                        annulment, the applicants essentially rely on six pleas in law
                            munities                                      alleging, first, infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                          lations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                          second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination; third,
                         (Case T-44/03)                                   infringement of the rights of the defence; fourth, breach of the
                                                                          principle that arbitrary procedures are prohibited and of the
                        (2003/C 101/73)                                   obligation to provide a statement of reasons; fifth, breach of
                                                                          the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                          of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’; and sixth, breach
                   (Language of the case: French)                         of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                          officials.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and 49
other officials, represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-45/03)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the                                           (2003/C 101/74)
      period within those years during which the applicants
      were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken
      into consideration for certain destinations;
      alternatively,                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority          European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio
      to reimburse, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the              S.p.A., represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, Massimo Merola,
      period within those years during which the applicants               Maurizio Pappalardo and Federica Martin, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Primarily:
                                                                          —     partially annul, on the basis of Article 230, EC Treaty,
                                                                                Council Decision 2002/947/EC of 12 December 2002
1.    annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it states that               implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/
      the applicant was involved in a single, comprehensive                     2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
      and ongoing cartel in the Italian market for solid and                    certain persons and entities with a view to combating
      hollow round reinforcing rods, the purpose of effect of                   terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 337,
      which was to fix prices by, inter alia, restricting or                    p. 85) and more specifically annul Article 1, point 1.25
      controlling production or sales;                                          of said decision and annul partially Article 1, point 2.14
                                                                                of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the
2.    annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision in so far as                 applicant;
      it imposes a fine of EUR 26,9 million on the applicant;
                                                                          —     declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241, EC Treaty,
In the alternative:                                                             Council Regulation EC 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001
                                                                                on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
—     reduce the fine of EUR 26,9 million imposed on the                        persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
      applicant by Article 2 of the decision, and                               (OJ L 344, p. 7);
In any event:
                                                                          —     require the Community to compensate the applicant on
                                                                                the basis of article 235 and 288 in an amount to be fixed
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    ex aequo et bono of not less than EUR 100 000;
                                                                          —     require the respondent parties to bear the costs of suit.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against the same decision as that
challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in that case.                                                             The applicant lives in the Netherlands and, in 1992, was
                                                                          recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Refugee
                                                                          Convention because of valid reasons of fear of persecution in
                                                                          the Philippines. The applicant was active in the Communist
                                                                          Party of the Philippines and is a consultant for the negotiating
                                                                          panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in
                                                                          the peace negotiations with the government.
Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union and the                         On 28 October 2002, the Council adopted decision 2002/
          Commission of the European Communities                          848/EC (1) and included the applicant on the list made pursuant
                                                                          to article 2 (3) of Regulation 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                          measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
                         (Case T-47/03)                                   view to combatting terrorism (2). The applicant was also
                                                                          included in the list adopted by decision 2002/974/EC (3) of
                                                                          12 December 2002. This last act is being contested in the
                        (2003/C 101/75)                                   present application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In support of its application, the applicant invokes a violation
                                                                          of the obligation to state reasons, a patent error of judgment
                                                                          and a violation of the principle of sound administration. The
An action against the Council of the European Union and the               applicant indicates that he has not, as an alias, Armando
Commission of the European Communitie was brought before                  Liwanag and is not in charge of the New People’s Army (NPA).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision
6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht, the Netherlands,            violates the principle of proportionality and the freedom of
represented by Mr Jan Fermon, Lawyer.                                     circulation of capital.


title: Case T-196/03: Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 184/50              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation
                                                                          for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European
Applicant for Community         Marine Enterprise Projects So-                 Parliament and the Council of the European Union
trade mark:                     cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
                                Fiorenzi S.r.l.
                                                                                (Case T-196/03)
Community       trade   mark    The figurative mark ‘BAIN-                                         (2003/C 184/107)
sought:                         BRIDGE’ — Application for re-
                                gistration No 940007 requested                                (Language of the case: English)
                                for products in Classes 18
                                (Leather and imitations of
                                leather, animal skins, hides;
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                trunks and travelling bags; um-
                                                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                brellas, parasols and walking
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
                                sticks; whips, harness and sadd-
                                                                          European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
                                lery) and 25 (Clothing, foot-
                                                                          Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
                                wear, headgear).
                                                                          lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or sign      The Applicant
cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                          —     Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
ceedings:
                                                                                the alternative, join the questions on admissibility to the
                                                                                examination of the substance
Mark or sign cited in op-       Italian      figurative      marks        —     Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
position:                       ‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and                    2003/15/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the
                                704338) for products in                         Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
                                Class 25, the figurative mark                   76/768/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
                                ‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’ (Reg.                       Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
                                No 593651) for products in                      remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
                                Classes 18 and 25, trade name                   the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of the
                                ‘THE         BRIDGE’          (Reg.             Directive 76/768/EEC.
                                No 642952) for products in
                                Class 25, the three-dimensional           —     order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the
                                marks ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.                        proceedings
                                No 704372 and No 633349)
                                for products in Classes 18 and
                                25, the trade name ‘FOOT-
                                BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 710102) for              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                products in Classes 18 and 25,
                                the figurative mark ‘THE
                                BRIDGE WAYFARER’ (Reg.                    The applicant is a European Economic Interest Grouping
                                No 721569) for products in                representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
                                Classes 18 and 25, the trade              The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
                                                                          concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
                                name ‘OVER THE BRIDGE’
                                                                          on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
                                (Reg. No 630763) for products
                                in Classes 18 and 25, and the             as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
                                trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.             chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
                                No 642953) for products in                reproduction.
                                Class 18.
                                                                          In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
                                                                          the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
Decision of the Opposition      Dismissal of the opposition.              following grounds:
Division:
                                                                          —     The alleged infringement of essential procedural require-
                                                                                ments. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
                                                                                based on an incorrect legal basis. According to the
Decision of the Board of        Dismissal of the appeal.                        applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
Appeal:                                                                         treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
                                                                                movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
                                                                                Further, the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
Pleas in law:                   Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)               powers, in that the contested measure is, according to
                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                     the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
                                (Risk of confusion).                            which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
                                                                                EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                                measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
                                                                                motivation.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/51
—     An alleged infringement of the EC Treaty and of                       European Communities on 30 May 2003 by Proras S.r.l.
      secondary Community legislation in that the contested                 Engineering and Contracting, represented by Gian Michele
      measure actually infringes Article 95(3) and Directive 76/            Roberti, Alessandro Maria Lerro, Marco Simone Mariani, Paolo
      768/EEC which require Community harmonisation                         Ziotti and Isabella Perego, lawyers.
      measures to be based on a ‘high level of protection’ of
      health, safety, environment and consumers.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     The applicant also advances a manifest error of assess-
      ment in that the contested measure allegedly fails to take
      account of scientific assessments made by the Community               —     annul the decision of the European Commission
      advisory bodies.                                                            contained in the letter of 19 March 2003 from Mr P.B.
                                                                                Knudsen, Director of Directorate A — Office of Coopera-
                                                                                tion, EuropeAid, D(2003) D/8511, ‘Proras exclusion from
In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to                 participation in a TACIS procurement procedure’;
the prohibition of carcinogenic and similar substances, the
applicant advances the following grounds:
                                                                            —     find the Commission liable in damages for having
—     An alleged manifest error of assessment and inconsistency                   adopted the abovementioned decision;
      with Directive 76/768/EEC. According to the applicant the
      contested measure is inconsistent with the risk-based
      approach in the latter Directive.                                     —     order the defendant to make good the injury suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as a result of that damage, quantified at
                                                                                EUR 1 177 638,24 and further order the publication of
—     An alleged infringement of an essential procedural                          any judgment to that effect;
      requirement, in that the prohibition should have been
      made subject to the prior consultation and positive
      opinion of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      and Non Food Products intended for Consumers, in
      accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 76/768/EEC.
—     An alleged infringement Article 95(3) of the EC Treaty
      and the rules adopted for its application,
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Further, the applicant alleges that both contested provisions
infringe superior principles of Community law, namely the
principles of proportionality, legal certainty and legitimate
expectations, the precautionary principle, the principle of                 By the present action, Proras S.r.l. Engineering and Contracting
consistency, the principle of equal treatment and the need to               (hereinafter ‘Proras’ or ‘the applicant’) is challenging the deci-
consider the balance of interests.                                          sion of the Commission contained in the letter of 19 March
                                                                            2003 from Mr P.B. Knudsen, Director of Directorate A —
                                                                            Office of Cooperation, EuropeAid, D(2003) D/8511, ‘Proras
(1) OJ L 66, 11.3.2003, p. 26-35.                                           exclusion from participation in a TACIS procurement proce-
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169-200.                                        dure’ by which it imposes, on the basis of Article 93(c) and (f)
                                                                            in conjunction with Article 96 of Regulation No 1605/
                                                                            2002, (1) a sanction consisting in exclusion for two years
                                                                            from tender procedures organised in the context of external
                                                                            actions funded by the Commission in the framework of the
                                                                            TACIS programme and, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288 EC,
                                                                            compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that
                                                                            decision. That decision was adopted after a procedure which
                                                                            contained a number of irregularities, denied by the applicant,
Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Proras S.r.l. Engi-                        which, according to the defendant, were committed in the
neering and Contracting against Commission of the                           course of tender procedure SCR — E/110983/D/S/NI,
                      European Communities                                  published by the unit ‘Programma de apoyo al Sector Educa-
                                                                            tivo en Nicaragua’ and financed under the ‘ALA’ programme.
                          (Case T-197/03)
                                                                            In support of its action for annulment, Proras puts forward
                         (2003/C 184/108)                                   four pleas in law. First, the applicant claims that the EuropeAid
                                                                            department, by adopting as a legal basis for the contested
                                                                            decision a provision — such as Regulation No 1605/2002 —
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         which had not entered into force at the material time, has
                                                                            infringed the principles of retroactivity, lawfulness of sanctions
                                                                            and legitimate expectations. So far as concerns procedure, the
                                                                            applicant criticises the aforementioned department for failing
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                     to inform it of the steps it intended to take in terms of the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                sanctions it proposed to impose on it or, at the very least,


title: Case C-220/09: Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/15

         Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-220/09)
   2009/C 193/20
   Language of the case: Maltese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Aquilina, W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta

      The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose correctly into national law the Annex mentioned in Article 3(3) and the third sentence of Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/13/CEE;

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission of the European Communities maintains that the Republic of Malta has failed to transpose correctly into national law the Annex mentioned in Article 3(3) and the third sentence of Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (the ‘Directive’) and has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under this directive.
   The Commission argues that whilst legislative action on the part of each Member State is not necessarily required in order to implement a directive, it is essential for national law to guarantee that the national authorities will effectively apply the directive in full, that the legal position under national law should be sufficiently precise and clear and that individuals are made fully aware of their rights and, where appropriate, may rely on them before the national courts.
   With regards, in particular, to the Annex mentioned in Article 3(3) of the Directive, the Commission maintains that the transposition of this annex into Maltese law is both necessary and important. It argues that inasmuch as the list contained in the Annex to the Directive is of indicative and illustrative value, it constitutes a source of information both for the national authorities responsible for applying the implementing measures and for individuals affected by those measures. Member States must therefore, in order to achieve the result sought by the Directive, choose a form and method of implementation that offer a sufficient guarantee that the public can obtain knowledge of it.
   The Commission argues that the Republic of Malta has failed to take measures which provide a sufficient guarantee that the public would be informed of the whole list in the Annex to the Directive, in particular of points 1(a), (f), (g), (h) and of point 1(q) in its entirety. Moreover, the Republic of Malta has not indicated that the Annex to the Directive had been reproduced in its entirety in the preparatory work for the law implementing the Directive, preparatory work which constitutes, according to Maltese legal tradition, an important interpretation aid. Besides, no other indication was given that this information was going to be provided to the public in any other way.
   With regards to the transposition into Maltese law of the third sentence of Article 5 of the Directive, the Commission argues that the transposition of this sentence into Maltese law is both necessary and important insofar as the proviso in the sentence in question is a binding legislative provision which confers more extensive rights and a greater protection on consumers and assists in determining the result which the Directive seeks to achieve.

      (1)  OJ L 95 p. 29


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 6 December 1995 in the cases of 1. Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2. Giovanni Pagano, 3. Rosa Bruna Vitale, 4. Francesca Nuccio, 5. Giacomo Cangialosi, 6. Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8. Emanuela Giovenco, 9. Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10. Daniela Guerrera, 11. Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero della Sanità and Local Health Authority No 58, Palermo (Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96)

text:
No C 145/2              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18 . 5 . 96
    specific damages, such as the exemplary damages                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato
    provided for by English law, pursuant to claims or                   by order of that court of 6 December 1995 in the cases of 1 .
    actions founded on Community law, if such damages                    Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2 . Giovanni Pagano, 3 . Rosa
    may be awarded pursuant to similar claims or actions                 Bruna Vitale, 4 . Francesca Nuccio, 5 . Giacomo Cangialosi,
    founded on domestic law.                                             6. Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8 . Emanuela
                                                                         Giovenco, 9. Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10. Daniela Guerrera, 11 .
                                                                         Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero della Sanità and Locai Health
5 . The obligation for Member States to make good loss                                       Authority No 58 , Palermo
    or damage caused to individuals by breaches of
                                                                                ( Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 )
     Community law attributable to the State cannot be
    limited to damage sustained after the delivery of a                                             ( 96/C 145/03 )
    judgment of the Court finding the infringement in
    question.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No C 92 , 2 . 4 . 1993 .                                          European Communities by orders of the Consiglio di Stato
    OJ No C 94, 3 . 4 . 1993 .                                           of 6 December 1995 , which were received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         cases of 1 . Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2 . Giovanni Pagano,
                                                                         3 . Rosa Bruna Vitale, 4 . Francesca Nuccio, 5 . Giacomo
                                                                         Cangialosi , 6 . Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8 .
                                                                         Emanuela Giovenco, 9 . Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10 . Daniela
                                                                         Guerrera , 11 . Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero délia Sanità
                                                                         ( Ministry of Health ) and Local Health Authority No 58 ,
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  Palermo, on the following questions :
                     of 26 February 1996
in Case C- 1 8 1/95 : Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham
                         Biologicals SA ( 1 )                            ( a ) Must the term 'court or tribunal' in Article 177 of the
                                                                               Treaty be interpreted extensively so as to include not
(Articles 20 and 37 of the Statute of the Court ofJustice of                   only judicial proceedings specifically defined as such in
the European Communities — Participation in proceedings                        national    law    but    also  contentious-administrative
            under Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty)                               proceedings characterized not only by impartiality, the
                          ( 96/ C 145/02 )                                     guarantee of full disclosure between parties, and so
                                                                               forth, but also by the fact that the decision cannot be
                                                                               revoked or amended by any other administrative of
                (Language of the case: French)                                 judicial authority ?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                        ( b ) Does the expression 'all those doctors who on
                                                                               31 December 1994 possess such a right' in Article 7 ( 2 )
                                                                               of Directive 86/457/EEC ( 1 ) refer to those who had
In Case C-181 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                   theoretically obtained entitlement to enter into a
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                                 service relationship ( as employees, under contractual
( Commercial Court), Nivelles, Belgium, for a preliminary                      arrangements, as members of temporary staff, etc .)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                    with the national health service, or only those who had
Biogen Inc . and Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA — on                        already in fact entered into such a relationship ?
the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92
of 1 8 June 1 992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
protection certificate for medicinal products ( OJ 1992                   'c ) If the answer to the second question upholds the second
L 182 , p . 1 ) — the President of the Court, after hearing                    possibility, is the Directive to be interpreted as meaning
the Advocate-General, N. Fennelly, made an order on                            that the national authority is in any event entitled to
26 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                           extend the term 'acquired rights' so as to include all
follows :                                                                      those who, on the date indicated, had acquired an
                                                                               ordinary certificate of entitlement to practise medicine,
                                                                               or as meaning that an 'acquired right' must be taken to
1 . The application to intervene by Research Corporation                       refer to a higher level of qualification than an ordinary
     Technologies Inc. is dismissed as inadmissible.                           certificate of entitlement to practise medicine ?
2.   There is no need to rule on costs.
                                                                         (') OJ No L 267, 19 . 9 . 1986 , p . 26 .
(!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case C-167/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 21 April 2008 — Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited v Omnipol Ltd

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 21 April 2008 — Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited v Omnipol Ltd
   (Case C-167/08)
   (2008/C 183/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited

      Defendant: Omnipol Ltd
   Question referred
   Is a creditor who pursues a claim in the name and for the account of his debtor a party within the meaning of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1), that is, a party who can lodge an appeal against a decision on the request for declaration of enforceability, even if he has not formally appeared as a party in the proceedings in which another creditor of that debtor applied for that declaration?

      (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 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02: Kaul GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARCOL — Earlier Community word mark CAPOL — Scope of the assessment conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 November 2004
   in Case T-164/02: Kaul GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ARCOL - Earlier Community word mark CAPOL - Scope of the assessment conducted by the Board of Appeal - Assessment of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal)
   (2005/C 19/45)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-164/02: Kaul GmbH, established in Elmshorn (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider) the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal having been Bayer AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), – action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2002 (Case R 782/2000-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, M. Vilaras and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 4 March 2002 (Case R 782/2000-3) of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.2.2002.


title: Case T-250/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Combescot v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Filling the post of Head of Delegation, Columbia — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Combescot v Commission
   (Case T-250/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Filling the post of Head of Delegation, Columbia - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 247/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Combescot (Popayan, Colombia) (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo, Agents and C. Corongui, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, declare that the decision to exclude the applicant from the competition to fill the post of Head of Delegation, Colombia is unlawful, annul the procedure for that competition and annul the decision to fill the post concerned and, secondly, award damages to compensate the applicant for the loss suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant, Mr Philippe Combescot, damages of EUR 3 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the applicant's costs;

               4.

               Orders the applicant to bear half his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-174/08: Action brought on 15 May 2008 — Commission v Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/25

         Action brought on 15 May 2008 — Commission v Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA
   (Case T-174/08)
   (2008/C 183/48)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Afonso, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to reimburse the Commission a principal amount of EUR 63 349,27, plus a sum of EUR 28 940,70 in late payment interest until 5 May 2008;

               —

               order the defendant to pay late payment interest from 6 May 2008 at a daily rate of EUR 10,91 until full repayment of the debt has been made;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action was brought under Article 238 EC.
   Within the framework of the project ‘European Network of Centres for the Advancement of Telematics in Urban and Rural Areas’ (ENCATA), the European Community, represented by the Commission, entered into contract No SU 1001 (SU) ENCATA with 12 contractors, among which the defendant.
   In accordance with the provisions of that contract the Commission undertook to grant financial assistance to the group of contractors, among which the defendant, for the development of that project.
   The project was set to last for 18 months.
   Work was started on the project on 1 January 1996.
   The Commission undertook to finance up to 50 % of the total cost of the project.
   On 25 September 1997 the parties agreed to a first revision of the contract.
   The duration of the project increased from 18 months to 36 months, with a starting date of 1 January 1996.
   On 29 June 1998 the parties agreed to a second revision of the contract, following which the duration of the project was reduced from 36 to 30 months, and the starting date of 1 January 1996 remained unchanged.
   The final costs of the project approved by the Commission were lower than the advances made by the latter within the context of contract No SU 1001 (SU) ENCATA.
   Consequently, the Commission sought reimbursement of the advances made in excess of the costs incurred.
   The sum owed by the defendant amounts to EUR 63 349,27 plus late payment interest.
   For years the Commission has incessantly been reminding the defendant of its debt and has sent it numerous requests for payment. The defendant, for its part, has acknowledged its debt on numerous occasions and has stated its intention to repay it as soon as possible, but up until now it has not made any payment whatsoever to the Commission of the debt and the late payment interest in respect of the advances made in excess of the framework of the ENCATA project.


title: Case T-229/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/26

         Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-229/11)
   2011/C 211/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Lord Inglewood (Penrith, United Kingdom), Georges Berthu (Longré, France), Guy Bono (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France), David Robert Bowe (Leeds, United Kingdom), Brendan Donnelly (London, United Kingdom), Catherine Guy-Quint (Cournon-d’Auvergne, France), Christine Margaret Oddy (Coventry, United Kingdom), Nicole Thomas-Mauro (Épernay, France), Gary Titley (Bolton, United Kingdom), Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy), and Maartje van Putten (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Forms of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament unlawful;

               —

               annul the contested decisions;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action is brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament.
   In support of their action, the applicants make four pleas in law on the substance, claiming:

               —

               infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and the principle of legal certainty;

               —

               infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in that the contested decisions raised the pensionable age by three years without transitional measures;

               —

               infringement of Article 29 of the Rules on Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the Quaestors and the Secretary General are responsible for the interpretation and strict application of those rules;

               —

               manifest error of assessment in that the Bureau’s decision of 1 April 2009, amending the rules serving as the basis for the contested decisions, is unsound.


title: Case T-121/06: Action brought on  25 April 2006  — British Nuclear Group Sellafield v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/19

         Action brought on 25 April 2006 — British Nuclear Group Sellafield v Commission
   (Case T-121/06)
   (2006/C 154/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: British Nuclear Group Sellafield Limited (Sellafield, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Percival, A. Renshaw, J. Isted and G. Bushell, Solicitors and R. Plender, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to annul the contested decision; or

               —

               in the alternative, to annul the measures contained in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

               —

               to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               to take any other actions that the Court considers to be appropriate.

         Pleas in law
   The applicant contests the Commission's Decision of 15 February 2006 on a procedure in application of Article 83 of the Euratom Treaty (BNG Sellafield Limited). By the contested Decision, the Commission issued a warning under Article 83(1)(a) EA. The Commission alleges that the applicant infringed certain provisions of the Euratom Treaty and Regulation 302/2005 (1), which relate to its particular reporting obligations and the provisions of access to certain facilities. The Commission accordingly requested that the applicant implement specified measures within the periods prescribed in the contested decision.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission lacks the competence to adopt the contested decision and the measures imposed on the applicant. According to the applicant, the Commission does not have the legal authority to adopt the measures imposed, including the measures dealing with principles of quality assurance and standards for nuclear accountancy and control, which exceed the scope of existing safeguards legislation.
   The applicant submits also that the defendant infringed the principle of subsidiarity since the imposed measures encroach on the competence of the relevant national authorities.
   According to the applicant, the contested decision is furthermore based, in whole or in part, on safety concerns, rather than on safeguard concerns, and accordingly Article 83 EA would not be the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision.
   The applicant submits, second, that the Commission committed an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by failing to conduct a full and proper procedure under Article 83 EA. The applicant states that the Commission did not inform it of its objections, did not offer a hearing and has violated its right of defence.
   Third, the applicant invokes that the Commission, in finding that the applicant had breached its safeguards obligations, infringed the Euratom Treaty and the rules of law relating to its application by committing a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of legal certainty.
   Fourth, the applicant invokes a violation of the principle of proportionality and legitimate expectations.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the applicant's right of defence and the right to a fair hearing, by breaching its duty to inform the applicant of the essence of the measures imposed by the sanction in sufficient time to afford the applicant an opportunity to comment on them before the contested decision was adopted.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 302/2005 of 8 February 2005 on the application of Euratom safeguards (OJ L 54, p. 1)


title: Case F-78/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2009 — Locchi v Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/22

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2009 — Locchi v Commission
   (Case F-78/08) (1)

   2009/C 233/45

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 66.


title: Case C-67/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/15

         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-67/12)
   2012/C 118/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and I. Galindo Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles, in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Article 15 of Directive 2002/91/EC provides that the Member States are to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with the directive at the latest on 4 January 2006.

               2.

               The Commission states that the Kingdom of Spain has yet to adopt the necessary provisions referred to in Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC or, in any event, has failed to communicate them to it.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2001 in Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00: Iberotam SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Directive 91/414/EEC — Placing on the market of plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 — Work programme for the evaluation of existing active substances on the market (second and third stages) — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 150/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
to extend the applicant’s contract as a member of the                       1.    Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00 are joined.
temporary staff and a claim for compensation for the non-
material damage alleged caused to her — the Court of                        2.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,                  3.    The applicants are to pay the costs.
Registrar, made an order on 2 February 2001, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                4.    There is no need to adjudicate on the application of the
                                                                                European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) for leave to
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                               intervene.
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 January 2001
                        of 24 January 2001
                                                                            in Case T-126/00: Confederazione Generale dell’Industria
in Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00: Iberotam SA and Others                      Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Commission of the
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                                             European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Directive 91/414/EEC — Placing                      (Time-limit for bringing an action — Manifest inadmissi-
on the market of plant protection products — Regulation                                                     bility)
(EC) No 451/2000 — Work programme for the evaluation
of existing active substances on the market (second and third
                                                                                (2001/C 150/56)
                   stages) — Inadmissibility)
                          (2001/C 150/55)                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)                           In Case T-126/00: Confederazione Generale dell’Industria
                                                                            Italiana (Confindustria), Confederazione Generale Italiana del
                                                                            Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI (Confcommer-
In Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00: Iberotam SA, established in
                                                                            cio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI),
Barcelona (Spain), Probelete SA, established in Murcia (Spain),
                                                                            established in Rome, Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese
Agripraza SA, established at Torres Vedras (Portugal), Protex
                                                                            Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan (Italy), and Banco di
SA, established at Wijnegem (Belgium), Laboratoire d’Achat
                                                                            Napoli SpA, established in Naples (Italy), represented by
pour l’Agriculture (LAPA), established at Omicourt (Belgium),
                                                                            A. Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and M. Merola, of the Rome
Afrasa SA, established at Fuente del Jarro-Paterna (Spain),
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Herbex SA, established at Sintra (Portugal), European Crop
                                                                            Chambers of A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v Commission of
Care Association (ECCA), established at Eghezee (Belgium),
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and V. Di
represented by M. Roca Junyent and J, Roca Sagarra, of the
                                                                            Bucci) — application for annulment of Commission Decision
Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                            2000/128/CE of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy
the Chambers of V. Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen, applicants in
                                                                            to promote employment (OJ 2000 L 42, p. 1) — the Court
Case T-112/00, and K & N Efthymiadis SA, established in
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by M. Roca Junyent and
                                                                            composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, and K. Lenaerts,
J, Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for
                                                                            A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of V. Gillen, 13 Rue
                                                                            made an order on 19 January 2001, the operative part of
Aldringen, applicant in Case T-122/00, v Commission of the
                                                                            which is as follows:
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and A.-M. Alves
Vieira) — application for annulment of Commission Regu-
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
lation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down
the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and
                                                                            2.    The applicant shall bear the costs.
third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2)
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25) — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                      (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
P. Mengozzi, President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 24 January 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-659/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/40

         Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-659/13)
   2014/C 45/70
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof
               In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU
               In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU
               In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

      (1)  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).


title: Case F-113/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — Irmantas Šimonis v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Inter-institutional transfer — Lawyer-linguist — Substitution of grounds — Requirement of a minimum length of service)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — Irmantas Šimonis v Commission
   (Case F-113/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Inter-institutional transfer - Lawyer-linguist - Substitution of grounds - Requirement of a minimum length of service)
   2011/C 252/100
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Irmantas Šimonis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Vilkas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K. Hermann, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision whereby, during the selection procedure for filling a post forming the subject-matter of vacancy notice no COM/2007/142, it declined to request the transfer of the applicant to the Commission and removed him from the selection procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Sets aside the decision whereby the European Commission removed Mr Šimonis from the selection procedure under vacancy notice COM/2007/142 by declining to request his transfer from the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs..

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008, p. 36.


title: Case C-97/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2008 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/22

         Appeal brought on 3 March 2008 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-97/08 P)
   (2008/C 128/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: Mr C. Swaak, advocaat, Mr M. van der Woude, avocat, Ms M. Mollica, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellants claim that the Court should rule:

               —

               that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 be set aside, insofar as it rejected the plea that responsibility was wrongfully attributed — jointly and severally — to Akzo Nobel NV;

               —

               that the Contested Decision be annulled, in as far as it attributed responsibility to Akzo Nobel NV;

               —

               that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in as far as they concern the plea raised in the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants consider that the Court of First Instance has misapplied the concept of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), as interpreted by the Court in its case-law on the imputation of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1).