title: Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Grandi Molini SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-165/98)

text:
5.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the
Ð annul the applicant's staff report for the period 1993                decision of 24 September 1998 by which the
     to 1995;                                                           Commission fixed the minimum price for the sale of
                                                                        barley held by the Austrian intervention agency within
                                                                        the context of the invitation to tender opened by
Ð order the Commission to pay compenation for non-                      Commission Regulation (EC) No 1666/98;
     material damage in the amount of ECU 10 000.
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay compensation for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     damage suffered in the interim by the applicant, in
                                                                        accordance with Articles 178 and 215 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty;
The applicant, an official on the technical and scientific
staff assigned to the Joint Research Centre at Ispra, states        Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
that at least until some time ago, his staff reports were               proceedings.
favourable, consistently acknowledging, in particular, his
professional abilities. However, as from the 1991 to 1993           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
staff report there began to appear negative comments with
regard to his character and his relations in the department,        The applicant company, which participated in the above
which were all the more serious in the overall assessment           invitation to tender and whose bid was rejected, takes
at the end of the staff report for the period 1993 to 1995.         issue with the fact that the Commission, through the
                                                                    contested decision, awarded the entire quantity subject to
                                                                    tender exclusively on the basis of the criterion of the
He claims that, moreover, the abovementioned report was
                                                                    lowest price', without, according to a fax sent by the
forwarded to him after the expiry of the period prescribed
                                                                    defendant on 29 September 1998, transport costs having
by the general provisions for giving effect to Article 43 of
                                                                    been taken into account in assessment of the tenders
the Staff Regulations.
                                                                    submitted.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first of all,      In support of its contentions, the applicant argues that
that the general provisions for giving effect to Article 43         there has been a breach of Article 1(2) of Commission
of the Staff Regulations were infringed inasmuch as the             Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 (1) along with an
report was late and the rules governing the complaints              infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
procedure were not followed.                                        distortion of competition by reason of the illegality of
                                                                    Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1666/
                                                                    98 (2), under which the defendant opened a standing
Secondly, the assessment contained in the report was                invitation to tender for the export of barley held by the
vitiated, in the applicant's view, by its manifest unfairness       Austrian intervention agency.
and by misuse of powers.
                                                                    It must be pointed out in this regard that under Article 7
                                                                    of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, transport costs are
                                                                    reimbursed by the intervention agency, which then charges
                                                                    them to the Community. The most favourable bid referred
                                                                    to in Article 1 cannot be represented solely by the price
                                                                    offered by those participating in the call for tenders for
  Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Grandi Molini                obtaining the cereals in question, but rather by that price
        SpA against the Commission of the European                  less transport costs in so far as both of these have an
                         Communities                                effect on Community finances. The applicant stresses in
                                                                    this regard that if, in the case of the consignment of barley
                       (Case T-165/98)
                                                                    in question, the Commission has subtracted the transport
                        (98/C 378/42)                               costs incurred for transport to Trieste from the price
                                                                    which the applicant had tendered, its actual bid would
                                                                    have been reduced by more than half. This means that if,
               (Language of the case: Italian)                      in respect of the price tendered by whoever was ultimately
                                                                    to be the successful tenderer, the transport costs were to
                                                                    be calculated to Rotterdam, as lies within the entitlement
An action against the Commission of the European                    of the successful tenderer, the bid accepted would be much
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   less favourable than that of the applicant company.
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October                  Consequently, the applicant, on the basis of the matters of
1998 by Grandi Molini SpA, represented by Wilma                     which it has cognisance, concludes that the contested
Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Mariano Paolin and                    decision was taken on the basis of bids which are not
Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address for              comparable and thus allowed the contract to be awarded
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,             without being certain that the successful bid was the most
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                  favourable.
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.12.98
The applicant accepts that the fact that a Member State                 by the applicants in respect of aid for distillation in
has no sea ports may make it necessary to finance the                   the 1982/1983 marketing year;
costs of transport between the place in which the cereals
the subject of the invitation to tender are situated and the
actual place of exit. That is not to say that this must             Ð order the European Commission, possibly also on the
happen automatically, but only in certain exceptional                   ground of unjust enrichment and/or by way of
cases. Consequently, the reason given in the penultimate                compensation for damage within the meaning of
recital in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1666/98,                  Article 178 of the Treaty, to pay the applicants a
justifying the appropriateness of financing such costs in              certain amount;
view of Austria's geographical position', appear to be too
abrupt. Luxembourg, which is the only other Community
country lacking a sea port, has never indicated any need
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the cost.
for a similar exception to be provided. On the other hand,
the idea that, in those Member States which do not have
sea ports, the bids of competitors should be penalised by
higher transport costs is based on a conception still linked        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
to national markets. According to the applicant, the
defendant appears to forget that Austria now forms part
of a single territory for customs and commercial purposes.          The applicant wine-cellars in the present case contest the
                                                                    decision whereby the defendant refused to pay an amount
                                                                    due to them as Community aid for the 1982/1983
In conclusion, the applicant argues that the Community's            marketing year under the legislation in force concerning
assumption of all transport costs, irrespective of the port         preventive distillation in the wine sector. The applicants
in which the goods are to be loaded for export, authorises          state in this regard that the abovementioned aid was not
trade to be diverted towards the ports of northern Europe,          received as a result of an omission by the distillery which
to the detriment of those of the Mediterranean, thereby             had received the wine and that it was returned in full to
distorting competition even between the various ports and           the Commission itself as a result of the repayment of the
providers of services operating in each of those ports.             security lodged by AIMA, the intervention agency.
(1) OJ L 191, 31.7.1993, p. 76.
(2) OJ L 211, 29.7.1998, p. 12.
                                                                    The applicants challenge in the first place the defendant's
                                                                    argument that the aid concerned by Commission
                                                                    Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 is payable to the distiller
                                                                    and not to the producers, since the provision of aid
                                                                    benefits, in the first place, distillers by enabling them to be
                                                                    compensated for the high buying-in price of the wine'. In
                                                                    their view, following perusal of that regulation and in the
Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Cantina Sociale di
                                                                    light of the general principles governing the system of aids
Dolianova and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                    in the wine sector, it is evident that the intended recipients
                    European Communities
                                                                    of the Community contribution are the producers
                       (Case T-166/98)                              supplying the wine. From that angle, it is clear that the
                                                                    scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82, in
                        (98/C 378/43)
                                                                    conjunction with Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/
                                                                    79, is to pursue the general interest of the common market
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     in eliminating the production of low-quality wine within
                                                                    the Community, encouraging producers of low-quality
                                                                    wine to send it for preventive distillation by providing aid
An action against the Commission of the European                    enabling them to sell it at market prices.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October
1998 by Cantina Sociale di Dolianova, Cantina Sociale               In any event, the discretion enjoyed by the Member States
della Texenta, Cantina Sociale della Marmila U.V.A.,                as to the choice of modality provided for by Articles 9 and
Cantina Sociale di Santa Maria La Palma (formerly                   10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 cannot undermine its
Cantina Sociale della Riforma agraria di Alghero) and               purpose, as set out above. It is not possible to argue that
Cantina Sociale del Vermentino di Monti, represented by             the unlawful conduct of Distilleria Agricola Industriale,
Carlo Dore and Giovanni Dore, of the Cagliari Bar, with             which consisted solely in not providing AIMA with proof
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             that payment of the price was made to the producers
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.                                    (inasmuch as the full price was not paid), could to any
                                                                    extent have compromised the rights of the producers
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         themselves to receive such aid. In the view of the
                                                                    applicants, any interpretation to the contrary would entail
                                                                    a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Ð declare unlawful Commission Decision VI B-I-3 M 4/
    97PVP of 31 July 1998, received by mail on 14 August
    1998, whereby it rejected the claim for payment sent


title: Joined Cases T-77/10 and T-78/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (L112) and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark L112 — Earlier French word mark L.114 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Declaration of partial invalidity)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (L112) and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112)
   (Joined Cases T-77/10 and T-78/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark L112 - Earlier French word mark L.114 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Declaration of partial invalidity)
   2012/C 109/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Certmedica International GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pfortner, lawyer) (Case T-77/10); and Lehning entreprise (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by P. Demoly, lawyer) (Case T-78/10)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Lehning entreprise (Case T-77/10) and Certmedica International GmbH (Case T-78/10)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lehning entreprise and Certmedica International GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               In Case T-77/10:

                           —

                           annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) in so far as it declares the registration of the mark L112 to be invalid in respect of ‘veterinary preparations’;

                           —

                           dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                           —

                           orders Certmedica International GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs;

                           —

                           orders Lehning entreprise to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

               2.

               In Case T-78/10:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders Lehning entreprise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;

                           —

                           orders Certmedica International to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-77/12: Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/69

         Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)
   (Case T-77/12) (1)

   2013/C 26/138
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-174/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 10 EC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Sixth VAT Directive — Obligations under domestic rules — Monitoring of taxable transactions — Amnesty)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-174/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 10 EC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Sixth VAT Directive - Obligations under domestic rules - Monitoring of taxable transactions - Amnesty)
   (2009/C 32/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and M. Alfonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 22 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation 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), replaced, as from 1 January 2007 by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Obligations under domestic rules — National law which discontinues the monitoring of taxable transactions carried out during a series of tax periods
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by extending, by Article 2(44) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2004) (legge n. 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004), to 2002 the tax amnesty provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003), and consequently providing generally and indiscriminately that assessment of taxable transactions effected in the 2002 tax period is to be discontinued, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a), (c) and (d) and Articles 193 to 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, which as from 1 January 2007 replaced Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and under Article 10 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-267/07: Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-267/07) (1)

   (2008/C 92/50)

      Language of the case: Slovenian

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

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-416/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo lodged on 23 July 2013 — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo lodged on 23 July 2013 — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo
   (Case C-416/13)
   2013/C 325/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mario Vital Pérez

      Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

      Question referred

   Do Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (2) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, inasmuch as they prohibit all discrimination on grounds of age, preclude the fixing, in a notice of competition issued by a municipality expressly applying a regional law of a Member State, of a maximum age of 30 for access to the post of local police officer?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-221/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeals — Second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Non-contractual liability of the Union — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Decision withdrawing marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-221/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Non-contractual liability of the Union - Conditions - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Decision withdrawing marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone)
   2012/C 165/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Artegodan GmbH (represented by: U. Reese, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Heller, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action for compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the adoption of Commission Decision C(2000) 453 of 9 March 2000, concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Erroneous assessment of the criteria as to the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Artegodan GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-214/00: Action brought on 16 August 2000 by "X" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 316/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
The grounds and arguments alleged by the applicant against               —     The Commission’s findings that the Regulations 17 and
the refusal by the Council to grant (partial) access to the                    1017/68 apply to various of the charges and surcharges
requested documents are similar to those invoked in case                       to which the decision relates is vitiated by breach of
T-188/98 (1).                                                                  essential procedural requirements and substantive errors
                                                                               of law. Concretely, the defects in the Commission’s
                                                                               market definition and reasoning vitiate the decision and
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.99, p. 28.                                                   render it unlawful.
                                                                         —     The decision is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory
                                                                               reasoning in its application of Article 2 and 5 of Regu-
                                                                               lation 1017/68 and of Articles 81(1) and (3) EC to the
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount the charges and
                                                                               discharges which it finds to fall within the scope of,
                                                                               respectively, Regulation 1017/68 and Regulation 17.
Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and
thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the                      —     There should be no basis for the application of Regu-
         Commission of the European Communities                                lation 17 and Regulation 1017/68 in relation to any
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount levels of Terminal
                                                                               Handling Charge (TCH). Any agreement by the Applicants
                         (Case T-213/00)
                                                                               relating to TCHs and to be subject to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 4056/86 (2).
                         (2000/C 316/54)
                                                                         —     The fines imposed by the Commission are excessive and
                                                                               inappropriate in view of the gravity and duration of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                             alleged infringment, the cooperation of the FETTCSA
                                                                               parties with the Commission and other mitigation factor
                                                                               and the duration of the Commission’s procedure.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM                        —     The Commission’s methodology for setting the levels of
and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies, represented by                    the fines should be considered as irrational and incoher-
John Pheasant, Catherine Barlen and Matthew Levitt of Lovells                  ent, resulting in discrimination between the FETTCSA
Boesebeck Droste, Brussels and Denis Waelbroeck and Ute                        parties.
Zinsmeister of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                         (1) Applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  inland waterway (OJEC No L 175, of 23.7.68, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and
—     annul the decision in its entirety, or, alternatively, at least        86 of the Treaty to maritime transports (OJEC L 378, of 31.12.86,
      in so far as it was adopted under Regulations 17 and                   p. 4).
      1017/68;
—     in any event, that the fines imposed by Article 4 of the
      decision be annulled or reduced; and
—     that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants in the present case are fourteen of the liner
shipping operators which were party to the FETTCSA, an                                            (Case T-214/00)
agreement between shipping lines operating on the North
Europe/Far East trade. The FETTCSA was entered into on                                            (2000/C 316/55)
5 March 1991 and was terminated on 10 May 1994. The
contested decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81
EC and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1917/68 (1), by agree-
ing not to discount from published tariffs for charges and                                   (Language of the case: French)
surcharges, and requires the applicants to refrain from agree-
ments on concerted practices having the same or similar effect.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The decision imposes fines.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’, represented
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:             by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission deducting 2 ×                  —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000 of
      BEF 60 000 from his monthly salary;                                       26 June 2000;
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at the         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs, with all the
      legal rate from 21 December 1999;                                         legal consequences which that entails.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and principal arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The present action is directed against Commission Regulation
By order of 4 December 1997 made in Case C-60/97 X v                      (EC) No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the
Commission (1), the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal                 Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain
lodged against the judgment delivered by the Court of                     names in the Register of protected designations of origin and
First Instance on 12 December 1996 in Case T-130/95 X v                   protected geographical indications provided for in Council
Commission (2). The applicant/appellant in those proceedings              Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographi-
was ordered to pay the costs.                                             cal indications and designations of origin for agricultural
                                                                          products and foodstuffs (1), in so far as it recognises ‘canard à
The applicant in the present case, who was also the appli-                foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ as a protected geographical indication.
cant/appellant in the cases cited above, contests the defendant’s
decision to deduct at source from his salary a sum equivalent             In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
to the costs which, according to the Commission, were
incurred by it in the proceedings before the Court of Justice
and the Court of First Instance.                                          —     that the French authorities have failed to comply with the
                                                                                essential procedural requirements laid down in
                                                                                Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                                 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
                                                                                cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
—     infringement of Articles 62 and 85 of the Staff Regu-                     ucts and foodstuffs (2);
      lations of officials;
                                                                          —     that the protected geographical indication (PGI) in issue
—     abuse of powers in the present case;
                                                                                cannot be registered, in the light of the requirements laid
                                                                                down by the applicable Community rules. In that regard,
—     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                the applicant states in particular that the promoters of
      reasons.
                                                                                the PGI have sought to procure the attachment of
                                                                                extremely rigorous conditions to the production of
(1) Not published.                                                              ‘canard du Sud-Ouest’ which have nothing to do with the
(2) [1996] ECR-SC I-A-603 and [1996] ECR-SC II-1609.                            origin or monitoring of such production or the quality of
                                                                                the production of ducks and ‘foie gras’, but which tend to
                                                                                place the greatest emphasis on a purely small-scale
                                                                                production structure, despite the fact that such a structure
                                                                                has no bearing whatever on the authenticity or quality of
                                                                                the manufactured products. The requirements imposed
                                                                                have no connection, therefore, with any attempt to secure
                                                                                protection in respect of geographical origin, and cannot
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile                              legally form part of the registration of the PGI without
d’Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste against the Com-                           distorting the object of the European protection pro-
            mission of the European Communities                                 cedure.
                          (Case T-215/00)                                       The applicant further claims that those unwarranted
                                                                                conditions attaching to the registration of the PGI of
                          (2000/C 316/56)                                       ‘canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ indicate a wish to distort
                                                                                free competition amongst the producers of ‘foie gras du
                                                                                Sud-Ouest’ themselves.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 (1) OJ L 154 of 27.6.2000, p. 5.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
European Communities on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile
d’Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste, established at Morlaas
(France), represented by Arnaud Lyon-Caen, of the Paris Bar.


title: Case F-107/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission
   (Case F-107/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/77)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 53.


title: Case C-444/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/55

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-444/12)
   2013/C 225/102
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Municipal Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hardimpex Kft (in liquidation)

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

      Question referred

      Must Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a tax authority from refusing a taxable person the right to deduct from the amount of VAT which it owes the amount of VAT paid or to be paid on a supply of goods to it, because an earlier transaction in the chain of supply was irregular under the VAT legislation or because that taxable person can be criticised for having failed to check the origin of the goods featuring in the invoices issued by its supplier, without the tax authority demonstrating to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person knew or should have known of that irregularity?


title: Case C-523/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Fines — Appraisal of the ability to pay — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/15

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-523/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Appraisal of the ability to pay - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Right to effective judicial protection))
   (2016/C 343/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Stadler, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case T-61/11: Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Vermop Salmon v OHIM — Leifheit (Clean Twist)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/25

         Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Vermop Salmon v OHIM — Leifheit (Clean Twist)
   (Case T-61/11)
   2011/C 89/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, O. Sude and M. Ring, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2010 in Case R 671/2010-1;

               —

               Declare Community trade mark No 4892642 ‘Clean Twist’ invalid;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant;

               —

               In the event that Leifheit AG intervenes in the proceedings, order the intervener to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Clean Twist’ for goods in Class 21

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Leifheit AG

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the earlier word marks ‘TWIX’ and ‘TWIXTER’ for goods in Classes 9, 12, 21, 22 and 25. Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-376/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — C v M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Wrongful retention — Habitual residence of the child)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — C v M
   (Case C-376/14 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Wrongful retention - Habitual residence of the child))
   (2014/C 439/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court, Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C

      Defendant: M

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 2(11) and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned by a judgment which fixed the residence of the child at the home of the parent living in the Member State of origin, the court of the Member State to which the child was removed, seised of an application for the return of the child, must determine, by undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact specific to the individual case, whether the child was still habitually resident in the Member State of origin immediately before the alleged wrongful retention. As part of that assessment, it is important that account be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought against it.

               2)

               Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a court judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned by a court judgment fixing the child’s residence at the home of the parent living in the Member State of origin, the failure to return the child to that Member State following the latter judgment is wrongful and Article 11 of the Regulation is applicable if it is held that the child was still habitually resident in that Member State immediately before the retention. If it is held, conversely, that the child was at that time no longer habitually resident in the Member State of origin, a decision dismissing the application for return based on that provision is without prejudice to the application of the rules established in Chapter III of the Regulation relating to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-749/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AROMA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA)
   (Case T-749/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AROMA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 232/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Chung-Yuan Chang (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH, formerly BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosh, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Peter Chung-Yuan Chang and BSH Hausgeräte.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO and BSH Hausgeräte GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Peter Chung-Yuan Chang.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case C-283/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia (Poland) lodged on 23 July 2009 — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia (Poland) lodged on 23 July 2009 — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B
   (Case C-283/09)
   2009/C 244/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Artur Weryński

      Defendant: Mediatel 4B

      Question referred

   Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, does the requested court have the right to demand from the requesting court an advance for witness expenses or reimbursement of the expenses paid to the witness heard, (1) or must it cover them out of its own financial resources?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1.


title: Case C-329/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Areiou Pagou by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the case of Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia

text:
4.10.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 239/3
—      Infringement of Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure           Further, is the use in a bank, as a credit institution, of balances
       of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits that        on a deposit account, funds being placed in that account, as
       in the present case the appeal was not accepted on the            provided for in Decision 1097/1959 of the Monetary Com-
       grounds of alleged failure to observe the period of               mittee referred to in this judgment (with the proceeds of
       confirmation, rather than the procedural time-limit which         imported foreign currency, and so forth), as deposits in
       was complied with by transmission of the fax.                     national currency, convertible into foreign currency, governed
                                                                         by Article 4 of that same directive, List D and item IX of the
                                                                         Nomenclature, which reads: ‘Opening and placing of funds on
—      Infringement of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure           current or deposit accounts, repatriation or use of balances on
       of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits, in         current or deposit accounts with credit institutions’, as that
       accordance with the principle of proportionality, that to         provision stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought
       the existing procedural time-limit, extended by ten days          by that provision?
       on account of distance, may be added ten additional days
       in order to validate an application and a list of annexes
       previously sent by fax.
                                                                         (1 ) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 p. 49.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Areiou Pagou                   Action brought on 29 July 2003 by the Commission
by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the case of                   of the European Communities against the Portuguese
        Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia                                                    Republic
                         (Case C-329/03)                                                            (Case C-332/03)
                         (2003/C 239/04)                                                            (2003/C 239/05)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
European Communities by order of the Areiou Pagou                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
(Supreme Court of Cassation) of 31 March 2003, received at               2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the Court Registry on 28 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling             represented by Thomas van Rijn and Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
in the case of Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia on          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
the following question:
Are (a) bonds issued by a bank in the form of a limited                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
company belonging, by virtue of its shares, to the State, with a
maturity of one year from issue which are dealt in on the
                                                                         1)     declare that:
money market, where they are quoted, or (b) bonds issued by
a bank in the form of a limited company with a maturity of
one year from issue which are dealt in on the money market,                     —     by failing to adopt appropriate rules for the use of
where they are quoted, governed by Article 4 of the First                             the quotas allocated to it for the fishing years from
Directive of the Council of the European Communities (921/                            1994 to 1996;
60) ( 1), List D and item VI of the Nomenclature, which reads
‘Short-term investments in Treasury bills and other securities
normally dealt in on the money market’, as that provision                       —     by failing to ensure compliance with Community
stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought or is to                        legislation in the field of conservation, by means of
be interpreted under a possible doctrine in international trade                       sufficient supervision of fishing activities and adqua-
of common experience, to the effect that securities such as                           te inspection of the fishing fleet and of the unloading
the one-year bonds in ETVA at issue constitute short-term                             and recording of catches in the fishing years 1994 to
investments?                                                                          1996;


title: Case C-35/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/28/EC — Veterinary medicinal products — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/18

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-35/07) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/28/EC - Veterinary medicinal products - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 297/29)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Stromsky, agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic. (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, agents)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 58)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not having adopted the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-144/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff case — Social security — Rejection of a claim for reimbursement of 100 % of certain of the applicant's medical expenses)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-144/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Social security - Rejection of a claim for reimbursement of 100 % of certain of the applicant's medical expenses)
   (2008/C 285/78)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J Currall and C. Barnardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Inter alia, an application, first, for annulment of the Commission decision refusing the applicant's claim for reimbursement of 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred and, secondly, for an order that the Commission pay him EUR 89,56 by way of additional reimbursement of medical expenses or as compensation for loss.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007 (formerly Case F-84/06).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 February 1997 in Joined Cases C-88/95, C-102/95 and C-103/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Santiago de Compostela): Bernardina Martínez Losada, Manuel Fernández Balado, José Paredes v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo (Inem) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty - Articles 4, 48 and 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Unemployment benefit for persons over 52 years of age)

text:
5 . 4 . 97           P EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Second Chamber)                                                       (Fifth Chamber )
                      of 20 February 1997                                                    of 20 February 1997
in Case C-114/94: Intelligente systemen, Database toepas             in Joined Cases C-88/95 , C-102/95 and C-103/95
singen, Elektronische diensten BV (IDE ) v. Commission of             ( references for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                 the European Communities (')                         Social de Santiago de Compostela): Bernardina Martínez
                                                                      Losada, Manuel Fernández Balado, José Paredes v. Institu
(Arbitration clause — Software development contract —                 to Nacional de Empleo (Inem ) and Instituto Nacional de
Claim for payment of balance outstanding and for                                        la Seguridad Social (INSS ) (')
damages — Counterclaim for repayment of amounts paid
                             on account)                              (Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty — Articles 4, 48 and
                                                                      67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment
                           ( 97/C 108/04 )                                        benefit for persons over 52 years of age)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/05 )
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 14/94: Intelligente systemen, Database toepas
singen, Elektronische diensten BV ( IDE ), a company
incorporated under Netherlands law, established in                    In Joined Cases C-88/95 , C-102/95 and C-103/95 :
Maassluis ( Netherlands ), represented by J. A. M. van de             references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Sande, of the Rotterdam Bar, 102 Wijnhaven, Rotterdam                 from the Juzgado de lo Social ( Social Court), Santiago de
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:                   Compostela ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling in the
A. C. Jessen and M. van der Woude ) — application for                 proceedings pending before that court between Bernardina
payment of the balance of the maximum contribution                    Martinez Losada, Manuel Fernandez Balado, Jose Paredes
provided for in the contract concluded between the parties            and Institute Nacional de Empleo ( Inem ) and Instituto
and for damages and counterclaim for repayment of the                 Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( INSS ) — on the
amounts paid on account by the Commission — the Court                 interpretation of Articles 4, 48 and 67 of Council
( Second Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President             Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ),            application of social security schemes to employed
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl ,                     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               families moving within the Community, as amended and
judgment on 20 February 1997, in which it:                            updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
                                                                      2 June 1983 ( OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as
                                                                      amended by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 1248/92 of
                                                                      30 April 1992 ( OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7 ), and of
 1 . dismisses the action brought by Intelligente systemen,           Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
      Database toepassingen, Elektronische diensten BV                Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      (IDE);                                                          President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges;
                                                                       C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein , Deputy
                                                                       Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 . orders IDE to repay to the Commission ECU
                                                                       20 Febuary 1997, in which it has ruled:
      533 456, together with interest at 7,97% per annum
      as from 29 July 1994;
                                                                       1 . An allowance such as that provided for by the Spanish
 3. orders IDE to pay the costs.                                            General L"w °» Social Security for unemployed
                                                                            persons of more than 52 years of age constitutes an
                                                                            unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4
     OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994.                                            (I ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                            14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                            schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                            persons and to members of their families moving
                             ___                                            within the Community, as amended and updated by
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/4            ΓΕΝ !                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5 . 4 . 97
       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June                    Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
       1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)                      Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
       No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 .                                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 30 . 10 .
                                                                         1978, p. 1 ; amended version of the Convention at p. 77)
2 . Article 48 of the aforementioned regulation is not                   — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray,
       applicable to unemployment benefits.                              President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President
                                                                         of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
3 . It is for the national court to determine whether the                Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G.
       condition laid down by Article 67 (3) of the                      Tesauro, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
       aforementioned regulation to the effect that a person             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 1997,
                                                                         in which it has ruled :
       who has completed periods of insurance in another
       Member State cannot rely on those periods in order to
       obtain unemployment benefit in the State concerned                1 . The third hypothesis in the second sentence of the first
       unless he last completed periods of insurance in                       paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of
       accordance with the provisions of the legislation of                   27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
       that State, is fulfilled where the person concerned has                enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
       never been in employment in that State but                             matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
       contributions have been paid on his behalf to the                      1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
       sickness insurance and familiy benefits schemes by the                 Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
       competent unemployment institution.                                    Northern Ireland, must be interpreted as meaning
                                                                              that, under a contract concluded orally in
4 . It is not contrary to Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                        international trade or commerce, an agreement
       Treaty, or to the aforementioned regulation, for                       conferring jurisdiction will be deemed to have been
       national legislation to require the person concerned to                validly concluded under that provision by virtue of the
       have paid contributions for a IS-year period to a                      fact that one party to the contract did not react to a
       pension scheme in one or more Member Stateis in                        commercial letter of confirmation sent to it by the
       order to qualify for the grant of an unemployment                      other party to the contract or repeatedly paid invoices
       allowance for claimants of over 52 years of age.                       without objection where those documents contained a
                                                                              pre-printed reference to the courts having jurisdiction,
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                               provided that such conduct is consistent with a
                                                                              practice in force in the field of international trade or
                                                                              commerce in which the parties in question operate and
                                                                              the latter are aware or ought to have been aware of
                                                                              the practice in question. It is for the national court to
                                                                              determine whether such a practice exists and whether
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        the parties to the contract were aware of it. A practice
                                                                              exists in a branch of international trade or commerce
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                   in particular where a particular course of conduct is
                        of 20 February 1997                                   generally followed by contracting parties operating in
                                                                               that branch when they conclude contracts of a
 in Case C-106/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    particular type. The fact that the contracting parties
 the Bundesgerichtshof): Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft                        were aware of that practice is made out in particular
           eG (MSG ) v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari ( ] )                      where they had previously had trade or commercial
 (Brussels Convention — Agreement on the place of                              relations between themselves or with other parties
 performance of the obligation in question — Agreement                         operating in the branch of trade or commerce in
                       conferring jurisdiction)                                question or where, in that branch, a particular course
                                                                               of conduct is generally and regularly followed when
                              ( 97/C 108/06 )
                                                                               concluding a certain type of contract, with the result
                                                                               that it may be regarded as being a consolidated
                  (Language of the case: German)                               practice.
     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
             published in the European Court Reports)                     2 . The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be
                                                                               interpreted as meaning that an oral agreement on the
                                                                               place of performance which is designed not to
  In Case C-106/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                determine the place where the person liable is actually
  of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal                         to perform the obligations incumbent upon him, but
  Court of Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the                            solely to establish that the courts for a particular place
  proceedings pending before that court between                                 have jurisdiction, is not governed by Article 5 (1 ) of
  Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft eG ( MSG) and Les                              the Convention, but by Article 1 7, and is valid only if
  Gravieres Rhenanes Sari — on the interpretation of                            the requirements set out therein are complied with.
  Article 5 ( 1 ) and the third hypothesis mentioned in the
  second sentence of the first paragraph       of Article 17 of the
                                                                           H OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
  Convention of 27 September 1968 on           jurisdiction and the
  enforcement of judgments in civil and        commercial matters
   ( OJ No L 304, 30. 10 . 1978 , p. 36 ),      as amended by the


title: Case T-522/09: Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Gemmi Furs v OHIM — Lemmi-Fashion (GEMMI)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/43

         Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Gemmi Furs v OHIM — Lemmi-Fashion (GEMMI)
   (Case T-522/09)
   2010/C 51/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gemmi Furs Oy (Loviisa, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lemmi-Fashion Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Bekleidungs KG (Fritzlar, Germany)

      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 21 October 2009 in case R 1372/2008-4;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board pf Appeal;

               —

               Allow registration of the Community trade mark concerned ‘GEMMI’, for all the goods in class 25, in accordance with the applicant’s Community trade mark application;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the applicant, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal, should it decide to become a party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The mark ‘GEMMI’, for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘LEMMI’, for goods in class 25; international trade mark registration of the mark ‘LEMMI fashion’, for goods in class 25; earlier non-registered trade mark ‘LEMMI’, used in the course of trade in Germany for clothing

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for the Community trade mark concerned, for goods in class 25

      Pleas in law:

   Infringement of Rule 19(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as the Board of Appeal has not correctly and/or sufficiently addressed the substantiation of earlier rights; infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal has not correctly and/or sufficiently assessed the proof of use submitted; infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal: (i) has not correctly assessed the similarity of the trade marks concerned; and (ii) has not correctly assessed the degree of attention of the relevant public; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to grant the applicant the opportunity to present its comments on the evidence purporting to substantiate earlier rights; infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legality.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 May 1995 in Case C-417/93: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Technical assistance to the independent States of the former Soviet Union and to Mongolia - Consultation of the Parliament)

text:
No C 159/4              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24 . 6 . 95
3 . Article 59 does not preclude national rules which, in                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      order to protect investor confidence in national financial                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
      markets, prohibit the practice of making unsolicited
      telephone calls to potential clients resident in other                                    of 18 May 1995
      Member States to offer them services linked to                  in Case C-327/92 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      investment in commodities futures.                              the Raad van Beroep, The Hague ): Rheinhold & Mahla
                                                                      NV v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
                                                                                Metaalnijverheid ( a )
(!) OJ No C 256 , 21 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                      (Social security — Duty of a main contractor to pay
                                                                            contributions not paid by a defaulting subcontractor)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/08 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                         of 10 May 1995
in Case C-417/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the
                       European Union (*)                             In Case C-327/92 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty by the Raad van Beroep ( Social Security
(Technical assistance to the independent States of the                Court ), The Hague ( Netherlands ), for a preliminary ruling
former Soviet Union and to Mongolia — Consultation of                 in the proceedings pending before that court between
                          the Parliament)                             Rheinhold        &    Mahla         NV       and Bestuur  van     de
                           ( 95/C 159/07 )                            Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid ( Board of the
                                                                      Professional and Trade Association for the Metal Industry)
                                                                      on the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                      persons and to members of their families moving within the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Community, as consolidated by Council Regulation ( EEC )
          published in the European Court Reports)                    No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (2 ) and of Article 51 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of F. A.
                                                                      Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
In Case C-417/93 : European Parliament (Agent: C.                     G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris , and J. L. Murray
Pennera ) v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : A. A.           ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. Gulmann, Advocate-General;
Dashwood and C. Giorgi ) — application for the annulment              H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
of Council Regulation ( Euratom, EEC ) No 2053/93 of                  given a judgment on 18 May 1995 , in which it has
19 July 1993 concerning the provision of technical                    ruled :
assistance to economic reform and recovery in the
independent States of the former Soviet Union and
Mongolia ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                I. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.                on the application of social security schemes to
Gulmann, P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                    members of their families moving within the
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Pui'ssochet, G. Hirsch                 Community, as consolidated by Council Regulation
and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L.                         (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June 1 983, applies to legislation
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                   which, like the Coordinatiewet Sociale Verzekering,
on 10 May 1995 of which the operative part is as                             coordinates the various branches of social security in a
follows :                                                                    Member State.
                                                                      2 . Provisions which, like Article 16b (5) and Article 16b (8)
1 , the application is dismissed;
                                                                             ofthe Coordinatiewet Sociale Verzekering, make a main
                                                                             contractor liable for social security contributions left
                                                                             unpaid by a defaulting subcontractor do not fall within
2 , the Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                             the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 .
í 1 ) OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1993 .                                  í 1 ) OJ No C 228 , 4 . 9 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p. 1 .                                ( 2 ) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .


title: Judgment of the Court 18 April 2002 In Joined Cases C-61/96, C-132/97, C-45/98, C-27/99, C-81/00 and C-22/01: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation laying down limits on and distributing fishing opportunities among Member States — Requirement of relative stability — Fishing quota exchanges — Fishing quota for anchovy — Annulment)

text:
15.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.  Annuls note 3 to the 13th heading concerning anchovy in the
                                                                                Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 Decem-
                                                                                ber 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
                           18 April 2002                                         stocks, the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain
                                                                                conditions under which they may be fished;
In Joined Cases C-61/96, C-132/97, C-45/98, C-27/99,
C-81/00 and C-22/01: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
                                                                             2.  Annuls note 3 to the 14th heading concerning anchovy in
                                                                                Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 390/97 of 20 Decem-
                                                                                ber 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
(Fisheries — Regulation laying down limits on and distribut-                     stocks, the total allowable catches for 1997 and certain
ing fishing opportunities among Member States — Require-                         conditions under which they may be fished;
ment of relative stability — Fishing quota exchanges —
          Fishing quota for anchovy — Annulment)
                          (2002/C 144/01)                                    3.  Annuls note 3 to the 15th heading concerning anchovy in
                                                                                Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December
                                                                                1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                               the total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions
                                                                                under which they may be fished;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             4.  Annuls note 3 to the 15th heading concerning anchovy in
                                                                                Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 48/1999 of
                                                                                18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
                                                                                of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and certain
In Joined Cases C-61/96, C-132/97, C-45/98, C-27/99, C-81/                       conditions under which they may be fished;
00 and C-22/01, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
Lapuerta) v Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery
and G.-L. Ramos Ruano), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and J. Guerra
Fernández, and, subsequently, T. van Rijn, assisted by J. Guerra            5.  Annuls note 2 to the 9th heading concerning anchovy in
Fernández), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                  Annex I D to Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of
President, P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur)                       17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, M. Wathelet,                          and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                      fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,                   munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required
has given a judgment on 18 April 2002, in which it:                              and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.6.2002
6.    Annuls note 2 to the 9th heading concerning anchovy in               Nygård and Svineafgiftsfonden, intervener: Ministeriet for
      Annex I D to Council Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 of                 Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, on the interpretation of
      15 December 2000 fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities           Article 9 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 23
      and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of      EC), Article 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-            Article 25 EC), Article 16 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the
      munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required;   Treaty of Amsterdam), Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                           Article 88 EC), and Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 90 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
7.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;           composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                           acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
                                                                           R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodri-
8.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear            gues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      its own costs.                                                       has given a judgment on 23 April 2002, in which it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                           1.   A levy charged by a body established under public law according
                                                                                to identical criteria on pigs produced in a Member State for
                                                                                slaughter on the domestic market or for live export to other
                                                                                Member States, the revenue from which is allocated to activities
                                                                                benefiting the two types of production, does not fall under the
                                                                                prohibition of charges having equivalent effect to customs duties
                                                                                on exports within the meaning of Article 9 of the EC Treaty
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         (now, after amendment, Article 23 EC), Article 12 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 25 EC) and Article 16
                                                                                of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam). Such
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                       a levy may, however, be classified as discriminatory internal
                                                                                taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                                amendment, Article 90 EC) if and to the extent to which the
                            23 April 2002                                       advantages deriving from the use made of its revenue compensate
                                                                                in part the charge imposed on pigs produced for slaughter in
                                                                                the Member State concerned, thereby placing at a disadvantage
in Case C-290/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the production of pigs for live export to other Member States.
the Vestre Landsret): Niels Nygård v Svineafgiftsfonden,
intervener: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fis-
                                keri (1)
(National levy on pigs — Charge having an equivalent effect
                                                                           2.   The fact that a national levy is intended to finance an aid
— Internal taxation — Levy scheme authorised by the
                                                                                scheme authorised by the Commission pursuant to the Treaty
Commission as State aid compatible with the common
market — Levy incompatible with provisions of the EC                            provisions on State aid does not preclude a national court from
                                                                                examining whether such a levy is compatible with other directly
Treaty other than Articles 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                                effective Treaty provisions.
amendment, Article 87 EC) and 93 of the EC Treaty (now
     Article 88 EC) — Discretion of the national courts)
                           (2002/C 144/02)
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-234/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Niels