title: Case T-373/09: Action brought on 25 September 2009 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/56

         Action brought on 25 September 2009 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)
   (Case T-373/09)
   2009/C 282/105
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Emilio Pucci International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 18 June 2009 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Joined Cases 770/2008-2 and 826/2008-2 in so far as, by partially upholding the applicant and the opponent's applications, it rejects the Community mark 3 679 591 with respect to classes 3, 18, 24, 25 and for ‘articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool’ in class 21;

               —

               allow registration of Community mark No 3 679 591‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ in its entirety;

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this application to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ (Application No 3 679 594) in handwritten letters for goods and services in classes 1 and 45.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: EMILIO PUCCI INTERNATIONAL B.V.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ No 203570 (classes 18 and 24), Italian word marks No 769250 (Classes 3, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 33) and No 274991 (classes 9, 12, 18, 20, 26, 27 and 34) and Italian word mark No 275894 (classes 14, 18, 24 and 25).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals brought by the applicant and the opponent partially upheld.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-194/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Action for annulment — Inaction of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/24

         Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council
   (Case T-194/11) (1)

   (Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Action for annulment - Inaction of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 340/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Geneviève Bro Grébé (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment, firstly, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Ms Geneviève Bro Grébé shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-71/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni (Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Articles 12 and 13 — Administrative charges and fees for rights of use — Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators — National legislation — Method of calculating the charge — Percentage of the costs paid by users)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/27

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni
   (Case C-71/12) (1)

   (Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 12 and 13 - Administrative charges and fees for rights of use - Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators - National legislation - Method of calculating the charge - Percentage of the costs paid by users)
   2013/C 225/43
   Language of the case: Maltese

      Referring court

   Qorti Kostituzzjonali

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited

      Defendants: L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — National legislation subjecting mobile telephone operators to a charge — Charge to be paid solely by mobile telephone operators and not by other undertakings offering electronic communications services

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which operators providing mobile telephony services are liable to pay ‘excise’ duty, calculated as a percentage of the charges paid to them by the users of those services, provided the trigger for that duty is not linked to the general authorisation procedure for access to the electronic communications services market but to the use of mobile telephony services provided by the operators and the duty is ultimately borne by the user of those services, which is a matter for the national court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-427/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/24

         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-427/17)
   (2017/C 293/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in 14 agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and 3(2) and Annex 1(A) and footnote 1of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               declare that, by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 25 agglomerations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) as read in conjunction with the requirements of Article 10 and Annex 1(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               declare that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 21 agglomerations, be, before discharge into sensitive areas, made subject to more stringent treatment than that described by Article 4 and in accordance with the requirements of Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (3) as read in conjunction with the requirements of Article 10 and Annex 1(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               declare that, by not ensuring that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants in the agglomerations of Arklow (IEAG_547) and Castlebridge (IEAG_515) is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorization, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 under Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC obliges the Member States to ensure that agglomerations above a certain size are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water. Where a Member State decides to operate a combined system of collection and treatment for both urban waste waters and rainwater runoff, then that system must be designed to ensure that the waters collected are retained and conducted for treatment, taking into account climatic conditions as well as seasonal variations. Based on the data received during the 7th and 8th Reporting Exercises under Article 15 of the Directive as well as the discussion with Ireland during the pre-litigation phase, the Commission is of the opinion that Ireland does not comply with that obligation for 14 agglomerations because of the lack of collecting system in place or because of excessive spills.
   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC obliges the Member States to ensure that urban waste water from agglomerations above a certain size is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge. Furthermore, Article 4(3) of the Directive obliges the Member States to ensure that discharges from urban waste water treatment plants satisfy the requirements laid down in Annex I(B) to the Directive. Having assessed the data provided by Ireland, the Commission considers that Ireland does not comply with the requirements of Article 4 as regard 25 agglomerations due to the lack of a treatment plant, the inability of the treatment plant in place to treat the whole load generated by the agglomerations it serves, the non-compliance with Annex I(B) standards, or as a result of non-compliance with Article 3 of the Directive.
   Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC further obliges the Member States to identify sensitive areas and to subject agglomeration above a certain size discharging in those areas to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4, in accordance with the requirements of Annex I(B). Having assessed the data provided by Ireland, the Commission considers that Ireland has failed to correctly apply Article 5 of the Directive in respect of 21 agglomerations.
   Article 12 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC requires that competent authorities shall ensure that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorization. Based on the information provided by Ireland, the Commission considers that Ireland has failed to comply with the requirements of Article 12 as regard two agglomerations in which treatment plants operate without a valid licence.

      (1)  OJ 1991, L 135, p. 40.


title: Case T-226/10: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission (Action for annulment — Representation by lawyers who are not third parties — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/23

         Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
   (Case T-226/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Representation by lawyers who are not third parties - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 204/43
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Gruszecka and D. Pawłowska, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 1234 of 3 March 2010, adopted pursuant to Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2008 L 108, p. 33), ordering the Polish regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications services and postal services to withdraw two notified draft measures concerning the national wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP transit) (Case PL/2009/1019) and the wholesale market for IP peering with the network of Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (TP) (Case PL/2009/1020).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-106/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Universal Utility International v OHIM (Greenworld) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Greenworld — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Universal Utility International v OHIM (Greenworld)
   (Case T-106/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Greenworld - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Utility International GmbH & Co.KG (Kaarst, Germany) (represented by: J. Mietzel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Greenworld) (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2013 (Case R 1658/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Greenworld as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Universal Utility International GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Appeal brought on 5 May 1997 by Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances (USEA), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles (Groupama), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA), Fédération Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances (FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de Réassurances (BIPAR) against the judgment delivered on 27 February 1997 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-106/95 between the Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances (USEA), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles (Groupama), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA), Fédération Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances (FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de Réassurances (BIPAR) and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic and La Poste (Case C-174/97 P)

text:
 No C 199/ 14         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28 . 6 . 97
 project entitled 'Plan d'Eau sur le Lot — Integration d'une             paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States
 microcentrale hydroelectrique basse chute dans le seuil '               are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
 (Stretch of water on the River Lot — Incorporation in the               particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising
 barrage weir of a small low-head hydro-electric power                   out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
 station ).                                                              institutions of the Community.
 On 17 January 1991 an advance payment of ECU 83 928                     The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
was made to the said contracting parties .                               yet taken the appropriate measures to transpose the
                                                                         Directive in question fully into the Greek legal system .
Thereafter, the project was modified and the construction
                                                                         (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .
of a small hydro-electric power station was abandoned . By
letter of 6 November 1992, the SIVU stated that the
financial support of the Community was no longer needed
and, by letter of 18 November 1992, the Commission
terminated the contract and demanded repayment of the
sum advanced .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 5 May 1997 by Fédération Française
The Commission has been unsuccessful in the steps which                 des Sociétés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés
it has taken since then to secure the said repayment.                  Etrangères d'Assurances ( USEA), Groupe des Assurances
                                                                       Mutuelles Agricoles ( Groupama), Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA),
(■) OJ No L 350, 27. 12 . 1985 , p . 29 .                              Fédération Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réas
                                                                        surances ( FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs
                                                                       d'Assurances et de Réassurances (BIPAR ) against the
                                                                       judgment delivered on 27 February 1997 by the Third
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities in Case T-l 06/95
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the                  between the Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assuran
    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 ces ( FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances
                                                                        ( USEA), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles
                       ( Case C-173/97
                                                                       ( Groupama), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents
                         ( 97/C 199/27)                                Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA), Fédération Française
                                                                       des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances (FCA ) and
                                                                       Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                    Réassurances       (BIPAR)       and     the Commission  of the
before the Court of Justice on 5 May 1997 by the                       European Communities, supported by the French Republic
Commission of the European Communities, represented                                                   and La Poste
by Maria-Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an                                          ( Case C-l 74/97 P)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                                                    ( 97/C 199/28 )
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            1997 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                  in Case T-106/95 between Fédération Française des Socié
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative               tés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères
                                                                       d'Assurances ( USEA ), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
     Directive   91 /676/EEC        of    12  December      1991       Agricoles ( Groupama ), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats
                                                                       d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances ( FNSAGA ), Fédération
     concerning the protection of waters against pollution
                                                                       Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances
     caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (') and to
                                                                       ( FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assu
     identify vulnerable zones on its territory, the Hellenic
                                                                       rances et de Réassurances ( BIPAR) and the Commission of
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     EC Treaty and that Directive,                                     the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 5 May 1997
                                                                       by Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances ( FFSA ),
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        Union Syndicale des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances
                                                                       ( USEA ), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    ( Groupama ), Fédération des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux
                                                                       d'Assurances (FNSAGA ), Fédération Française des Cour
                                                                       tiers d'Assurance et des Réassurances (FCA) and Bureau
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                 International des Producteurs d'Assurance et de Réassu
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be              rances ( BIPAR), represented by Dominique Voillemot,
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Member State to which it is addressed . Under the first                Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/ 15
The appellants claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-175/97 )
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     the European Communities delivered on 27 February                                              ( 97/C 199/29 )
     1997 in Case T-106/95 ,
— consequently, annul the Commission 's decision of                     An action against the French Republic was brought before
     8 February 1995 ('),                                               the Court of Justice on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin
                                                                        and Laura Pignataro, acting as Agents, with an address for
— declare incompatible with the common market,                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
     pursuant to Article 92 ( 1 ), the provisions in question           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     of the French Law to 2 July 1990 .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any case
The judgment of the Court of First Instance infringes                        to notify, within the period prescribed the laws,
Articles 90 ( 2 ) and 92 of the EC Treaty.                                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                             to comply with Council Directive 93/89/EEC of
                                                                             25 October 1993 on the application by Member States
The Court was wrong to hold that the aid in question,                        of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
namely an 85 % reduction in property and business taxes,                     goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of
merely offsets the additional public service costs which La                  certain infrastructures ('), the French Republic has
Poste has to bear. In practice, the aid granted benefits all                 failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
of la Poste 's activities, including its competitive activities,             under that Directive,
and there are therefore cross-subsidies . The Court upheld
the Commission 's decision even though there are no
analytical accounts which are the only possible means of                — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
ascertaining that only activities reserved to La Poste have
been subsidized .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The evaluation of the additional costs of performing the
reserved activities is fanciful . The activities must be
                                                                        Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
distinguished from competitive activities which must be                 a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
pursued on the market in question and the conditions                    upon each Member State to which it is addressed and,
under which they are performed . Article 92 of the Treaty               under Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to
is fully applicable to those competitive activities . It is the         take all appropriate measures, whether general or
Commission's duty to ensure that the aid does not end up
                                                                        particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations resulting
subsidizing those activities .                                          in particular from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                        Community.
According to the contested judgment, La Poste breaks
even on all its activities . It is not the aid which enables La
Poste to break even but the profits improperly made from                Article 13 of the Directive in question provides that the
competitive activities enjoying tax concessions.                        Member States are to bring into force the laws,
                                                                        regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                        comply therewith by 1 January 1995 .
The 34,7 % weighting used by the Commission to take
account of the advantages enjoyed by La Poste 's
competitive services owing to the existence of the postal               By its judgment in Case C-21 /94 European Parliament v.
network in rural areas, which is upheld by the judgment,                Council [ 1995] ECR 1827, the Court of Justice annulled
is not correct. On the basis of turnover, 75 % of the                   the said Directive but held that its effects should be
activity of offices in rural areas can be calculated to be              preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive .
devoted to competitive services . With that percentage, the             That judgment cannot justify a failure to transpose the
aid is much greater than the additional costs.                          Directive in question .
(') OJ No C 262, 7. 10 . 1995 , p . 11 .                                (') OJ No L 279, 12 . 11 . 1993 , p . 32 .


title: Case T-104/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/7

         Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)
   (Case T-104/12)
   2012/C 157/11
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Vykydal, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Performance Industries Manufacturing, Inc. (Odessa, Florida, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 December 2011 in Case R 512/2011-4, VORTEX/VORTEX, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Performance Industries Manufacturing Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘VORTEX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 12 (Registration No 5 375 324).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘VORTEX’, registered for services in Classes 35 and 39 (mark No 5 514 104).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

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

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case C-56/03: Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 83/11
Action brought on 11 February 2003 by the Commission                        Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy
                                  Spain                                                              of Luxembourg
                            (Case C-55/03)                                                           (Case C-56/03)
                            (2003/C 83/17)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/18)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Febru-               An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser, and Marina                     ties on 12 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Valverde López, a member of the auxiliary staff of its Legal                Communities, represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent,
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                            the Court should:
—      Declare that, by failing to implement Council Directives
       89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 ( 1) and 92/51/EEC of
                                                                            —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
       18 June 1992 (2) on a second general system for the
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       recognition of professional education and training to
                                                                                comply with Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parlia-
       supplement Directive 89/48/EEC in connection with the
                                                                                ment and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal
       profession of air traffic controller in the civil sector, the
                                                                                protection of designs ( 1), or in any event by failing to
       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                inform the Commission of those provisions, the Grand-
       the EC Treaty;
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      under Article 19 of that directive;
                                                                            —     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs
                                                                                of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC apply, not to
diplomas awarded on completion of academic education but                    Pleas in law and main arguments
rather to diplomas awarded on completion of education and
training at the end of which the holder of such a diploma is
                                                                            The period within which the directive had to be transposed
fully qualified to practise a given profession. In consequence,
                                                                            expired on 28 October 2001.
it is not the diploma giving access to training as an air traffic
controller which must be recognised in accordance with those
directives, but the final diploma giving access to the profession           (1 ) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.
of air traffic controller in the civil sector. Having regard to the
provisions of Royal Decree 3/1998, the Commission considers
that that profession is regulated in Spain for the purposes of
Article 1(d) of Directive 89/48/EEC and the settled case-law of
the Court of Justice.
The Member States are required to transpose directives into
their national legal order. The fact that there exists a law                Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission
approved by Eurocontrol does not relieve Spain of that                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
obligation.
                                                                                (Case C-57/03)
( 1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
     system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                                (2003/C 83/19)
     on completion of professional education and training of at least
     three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 24 January 1989, p. 16).
( 2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
     system for the recognition of professional education and training
     to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209 of 24 July 1992,           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     p. 25).                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                            2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.


title: Case C-462/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Stichting de Thuiskopie v Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH, Mijndert van der Lee, Hananja van der Lee (Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Exception of copying for private use — Article 5(2)(b) and (5) — Fair compensation — Person responsible for paying the levy earmarked for financing of that compensation — Distance selling between two persons resident in different Member States)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Stichting de Thuiskopie v Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH, Mijndert van der Lee, Hananja van der Lee
   (Case C-462/09) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Exception of copying for private use - Article 5(2)(b) and (5) - Fair compensation - Person responsible for paying the levy earmarked for financing of that compensation - Distance selling between two persons resident in different Member States)
   2011/C 232/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stichting de Thuiskopie

      Defendants: Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH, Mijndert van der Lee, Hananja van der Lee

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(2)(b) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Reproduction rights — Fair compensation — Distance selling between two persons residing in two different Member States — Legislation not permitting the recovery of compensation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, in particular Article 5(2)(b) and (5) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the final user who carries out, on a private basis, the reproduction of a protected work must, in principle, be regarded as the person responsible for paying the fair compensation provided for in Article 5(2)(b). However, it is open to the Member States to establish a private copying levy chargeable to the persons who make reproduction equipment, devices and media available to that final user, since they are able to pass on the amount of that levy in the price paid by the final user for that service.

               2.

               Directive 2001/29, in particular Article 5(2)(b) and (5) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member State which has introduced a system of private copying levies chargeable to the manufacturer or importer of media for reproduction of protected works, and on the territory of which the harm caused to authors by the use for private purposes of their work by purchasers who reside there occurs, to ensure that those authors actually receive the fair compensation intended to compensate them for that harm. In that regard, the mere fact that the commercial seller of reproduction equipment, devices and media is established in a Member State other than that in which the purchasers reside has no bearing on that obligation to achieve a certain result. It is for the national court, where it is impossible to ensure recovery of the fair compensation from the purchasers, to interpret national law in order to allow recovery of that compensation from the person responsible for payment who is acting on a commercial basis.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-588/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Mechadyne International v OHIM (FlexValve) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark FlexValve — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Mechadyne International v OHIM (FlexValve)
   (Case T-588/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark FlexValve - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mechadyne International Ltd (Kirtlington, United Kingdom) (represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen and E. Schaper, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, then S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2014 (Case R 2435/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign FlexValve as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mechadyne International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-11/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), lodged on 4 January 2012 — Maatschap L.A. and Others v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), lodged on 4 January 2012 — Maatschap L.A. and Others v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
   (Case C-11/12)
   2012/C 98/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maatschap L.A., D.A.B. Langestraat, P. Langestraat-Troost

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

      Question referred

   Must Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) be interpreted as imposing a reduction or an exclusion on the farmer who has submitted an aid application, such as that which would be imposed, in respect of established non-compliance, on the actual offender, to whom or by whom the land was transferred, if that offender had himself submitted the application? Or does the provision mean solely that the established non-compliance is to be attributed to the person submitting the aid application, but that, in the determination of the (level of the) reduction or exclusion, it is still necessary to establish the extent to which there has been negligence, fault or intent on the part of the farmer himself?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  15 September 2005  in Case C-464/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Motor vehicles — Making available to the employee by the employer — Vehicle registered in the Member State of the employer — Employee resident in another Member State — Taxation of the motor vehicle)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-464/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Motor vehicles - Making available to the employee by the employer - Vehicle registered in the Member State of the employer - Employee resident in another Member State - Taxation of the motor vehicle)
   (2005/C 315/01)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-464/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: N.B. Rasmussen and D. Martin) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), supported by Republic of Finland, (Agent: T. Pynnä) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, in so far as

                           —

                           its legislation and administrative practice do not allow workers resident in Denmark and employed in another Member State in work which is not their principal employment to use for business or private purposes a company vehicle registered in that other Member State where the undertaking of their employer is established, and

                           —

                           its legislation and administrative practice allow employees resident in Denmark and employed in another Member State to use for business purposes or business and private purposes a company vehicle registered in that other Member State in which their employer has its registered office or principal establishment, the vehicle neither being intended to be essentially used in Denmark on a permanent basis nor being actually so used, only subject to the condition that the employment with that employer is their main employment and that a tax is paid for that purpose,

                     the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 22.02.2003.


title: Case C-428/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/4

         Action brought on 6 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-428/04)
   (2004/C 314/07)
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell and Horstpeter Kreppel, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should rule as follows:

               I.

               The Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 18 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1), by:

                           1.

                           failing to adopt, to date, and notwithstanding the expiry of the period for transposition, the following legislation, by means of which the directive should have been transposed into Austrian law, namely:

                                       (a)

                                       the Landeslehrer-Dienstrechtsgesetz (LDG) (General Rules applying to Teachers in the Länder)

                                       (b)

                                       the Beamten-, Kranken- und Unfallversicherungsgesetz (Law on Sickness and Accident Insurance Schemes for Civil Servants)

                                       (c)

                                       the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG) (Law on General Sickness Insurance Schemes)

                                 or in the event that these measures have since been adopted, by failing to notify them to the Commission;

                           2.

                           failing to transpose, or not properly transposing, the following Articles of the directive into Austrian law, namely:

                                       (a)

                                       Article 2(1), concerning teachers in ‘öffentlichen Pflichtschulen’ in the Tirol

                                       (b)

                                       Article 7(3)

                                       (c)

                                       Article 8(2)

                                       (d)

                                       Article 11(2)

                                       (e)

                                       Article 12(4)

                                       (f)

                                       Article 13(2)(a) and (b)

               II.

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period allowed for transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC (‘the Directive’) into Austrian law expired on 31.12.1993.
   The Commission takes the view that the transposition of the Directive remains incomplete or insufficient.
   Firstly, the legislative provisions which the Austrian Government promised would transpose the Directive (namely the Landeslehrer-Dienstrechtsgesetz (LDG), the Beamten-, Kranken- und Unfallversicherungsgesetz and the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG)), have not been adopted, and in the event that they have since come into force, they have not been notified to the Commission.
   Secondly, with regard to certain provisions (in total six) of that directive, the Commission notes that, in the legislative provisions communicated by the Austrian authorities, the Directive has been incompletely or incorrectly transposed.
   The Commission also complains that even though the scope of Article 2(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC is exhaustive, none of the national transposition measures relate to teachers in ‘Pflichtschulen’ in the Tirol.
   Under Article 7 of the Directive, the employer is obliged to designate one or several employees to carry out activities related to the prevention of occupational risks, on condition that he has suitably qualified personnel available to him. In the Commission's view, Article 7 of the Directive favours risk management within the undertaking, as Article 7(3) only provides for recourse to qualified personnel outside the undertaking, when there is a lack of qualified personnel within the company (see on this point the judgment in Case C-441/01, Commission v Netherlands [2003]. However, the Austrian transposition measures allow the employer to choose whether to entrust protective activities either to safety specialists from within the company or outside the company.
   Article 8(2) (Duty to take the necessary measures for first aid, fire-fighting and evacuation of workers) does not provide for any exception for small undertakings in the Commission's view. However, under the Austrian transposition measures, small undertakings are exempt from this obligation.
   The Commission is of the view that the measures transposing Article 11(2) of the Directive do not cover certain duties to inform on the part of the employer, as provided for in that Article.
   Article 12(4) of the Directive states that the training referred to in that Article may not be at the workers' expense.
   Whilst the Austrian transposition measures stipulate that time spent attending such training is to be considered as remunerated work, they do not stipulate who should bear the cost of such training.
   Finally, the Commission complains that Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Directive has not been completely transposed into Austrian law. Contrary to Article 13(2)(b), the concept of ‘work equipment’ within the meaning of Article 15 of the ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz (ASchG) (Law on the Protection of Workers) and Article 15 of the Bundesbedienstetenschutzgesetz (B-BSG) (Law on the Protection of Federal State Personnel) does not cover dangerous substances. Furthermore, the obligation laid down in Article 13(2)(b) to return personal protective equipment to its proper place after use has not been transposed into Austrian law.


title: Case T-219/00: Action brought on 18 August 2000 by Ellos AB, a company incorporated under Swedish law, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 316/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.11.2000
Action brought on 18 August 2000 by Ellos AB, a com-                     Action brought on 23 August 2000 by Cheil Jedang
pany incorporated under Swedish law, against the Office                  Corporation against the Commission of the European
          for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                Communities
                         (Case T-219/00)                                                         (Case T-220/00)
                        (2000/C 316/57)                                                          (2000/C 316/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 August 2000 by Ellos AB, Borås                European Communities on 23 August 2000 by Cheil Jedang
(Sweden) represented by Göran Bergqvist, Albihns Patentbyrå,             Corporation, represented by Alasdair R.M. Bell, Solicitor (Scot-
Göteborg (Sweden).                                                       land), Rony Gerrits, Advocaat (Belgium) and James Killick,
                                                                         Barrister (England and Wales) of White & Case, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Decision No. 385/1999-1 of the First Board of
      Appeal of 15 June 2000 and order the Office to register
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision No. C (2000) 1565 final of
      ELLOS for all classes sought;
                                                                               7 June 2000;
—     in the alternative, order the Office to register ELLOS for
      classes 24 and 35 as sought;                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant in the present case, a company established under
                                                                         the laws of the Republic of Korea, produces lysine in Indonesia,
Trade Mark concerned:         word mark ‘ELLOS’ — Appli-                 some of which is sold in the European Union. It seeks the
                              cation No 88815                            annulment of the Commission decision dated 7 June 2000 —
                                                                         C(2000) 1565 final, concerning a procedure under Article 81
                                                                         of the EC Treaty (Case Comp/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).
Product or Service:           certain goods and services in              This decision has imposed a fine inter alia to the applicant,
                              classes 24 (textiles), 25 (clothing),      after having considered it had infringed Article 81(1) of the EC
                              35 (customer services for mail-            Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating
                              order sales)                               in agreements on prices, sales volumes and the exchange of
                                                                         individual information on sales volumes of synthetic lysing.
Contested         Decision    refusal of Registration by the
before the Board of           Examiner
Appeal:                                                                  The application challenges the decision, in particular, on the
                                                                         following grounds:
Pleas in law:                 — the trade mark is of enough
                                   distinctive character to be
                                   registered as a Community             —     The fine imposed on the applicant is too severe and thus
                                   trade mark                                  illegal as the Commission failed to take into account a
                                                                               series of elements either as a reduction in the duration of
                              — the office has failed to take                  the infringement or as a mitigation factor.
                                   into account that there are
                                   registered trade marks con-
                                   sisting of and containing the         —     The decision is contrary to the applicant’s legitimate
                                   word ‘ellos’ in Spain.                      expectations as well as to fundamental principles of EC
                                                                               law, as the Commission changed the applicable rules (i.e.
                                                                               the Commission Guidelines on the setting of fines (1))
                                                                               during the course of the administrative proceedings to
                                                                               the detriment of the applicant.


title: Case F-24/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Wilms v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Wilms v Commission
   (Case F-24/08) (1)

   (2009/C 44/144)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 34.


title: Action brought on 26 February 1997 by Lucette Gérard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-38/97)

text:
No C 142/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Anne-Marie                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mathieu against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                          ( Case T-34/97 )                             Case T- 16/97 (').
                           ( 97/C 142/38 )
                                                                       (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27 .
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Anne-Marie Mathieu, residing in Brussels,                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Liliane
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Waerzeggers against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                                 Communities
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                ( Case T-36/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( 97/C 142/40 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                       (Language of the case: French)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     1997 by Liliane Waerzeggers, residing in Holsbeek
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 (').                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                       consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                            ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Rupert
Schlegelmilch against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                          ( Case T-35 /97 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 142/39 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case T- 16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Rupert Schlegelmilch, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       Action brought on 26 February 1997 by Lucette Gerard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                                                 ( Case T-38/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                 ( 97/C 142/41 )
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 26 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             1997 by Lucette Gerard, residing in Brussels, represented
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 142/ 19
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address                  — order the defendant to pay the applicant one ecu as
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                          token damages in respect of non-material damage,
Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request of 12 March 1996
                                                                         The applicant objects to the reduction to three months of
     that she be regraded,
                                                                         her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff in
                                                                         category A in the service of the defendant. She states that
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 the offer of employment, notified by letter of 30 April
     decision of 22 November 1996 rejecting her                          1 996, expressly referred to a term of 36 months . However,
     administrative complaint of 10 July 1996,                           on the following 7 May, she presented herself at the
                                                                         recruitment department where a contract for the term to
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         which she objects was presented to her. In those
                                                                         circumstances, it was only five weeks before the expiry of
                                                                         that three-month contract that the defendant informed her
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      that the offer of employment on the basis of which she
                                                                         made essential family, financial and professional
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   arrangements had lapsed as a result of a 'typing error'.
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                         expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                         welfare of officials. She considers that, in view of the
                                                                         duration of the contract at issue, the administration 's
                                                                         slowness in examining the problems associated with one
                                                                         of the decisive factors prompting her acceptance of the
                                                                         offer, namely the duration of the contract, is manifestly
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc                   contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the
     against Commission of the European Communities                      principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                          ( Case T-43/97)                                which any party to a contract is entitled to rely on as
                                                                         regards the conduct of the other party. In her opinion, it is
                            ( 97/C 142/42 )
                                                                         unacceptable for one of the parties unilaterally to change
                                                                         one of the essential features of a bilateral contract during
                (Language of the case: French)                           its currency, particularly on which was decisive in bringing
                                                                         about the consent of the other party to it. Even if —
An action against the Commission of the European                         although that was not the case — a typing error misled
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the applicant, it was incumbent on the administration to
Instance on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc,                        take immediate action to rectify matters .
residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                       sound administration and good management.
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision changing the duration
     of her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff of               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Piera Ghignone and
     the 'Industrial Policy' Directorate-General, 'Legislation                  Others against Council of the European Union
     and     standarization        and    telematics     networks '                               Case T-44/97 )
     Directorate, ' Quality, certification and conformity
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/43 )
     marking' Unit ( DG.III.3P.4 ), offered by letter of
     30 April 1996 ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the
     remuneration to which she is entitled as a member of                An action against the Council of the European Union was
     the auxiliary staff for the period of 36 months                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 3 March
     indicated in the contract, plus interest at the rate of             1997 by Piera Ghignone, Helga Glassl, Colette Jemaa,
     8 % per annum, subject to deduction of any sums                     Enrica Massucco, Giovanni di Maio, Rene Franquinet,
     received and those which may be received by way of                  Klaus-Dietrich Jagstaidt, Michel Perillat, residing in
     remuneration in the same period,                                    Geneva, Jacques Brodin, residing in Tannay ( Switzerland ),


title: Case T-193/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Skareby v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Reports — Career development report — Appraisal year 2004 — Fixing of objectives and communication of appraisal criteria)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case T-193/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Reports - Career development report - Appraisal year 2004 - Fixing of objectives and communication of appraisal criteria)
   2009/C 282/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, not published in the ECR, to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the claim based on the failure to fix objectives in advance, the failure to communicate the appraisal criteria in advance and Ms Carina Skareby's job description;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of 31 August 2005 establishing Ms Skareby's career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004 to the extent that it concerns point 6.1, entitled ‘Efficiency’;

               3.

               For the rest, dismisses the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-46/06;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in their entirety, the costs of the present instance and of the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-218/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)
   (Case T-218/08) (1)

   2009/C 193/52

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case C-455/04: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/55/EC — Asylum policy — Mass influx of displaced persons — Temporary protection — Minimum standards — Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-455/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/55/EC - Asylum policy - Mass influx of displaced persons - Temporary protection - Minimum standards - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 131/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. White)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ 2001 L 212, p. 12)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into domestic law Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.


title: Case T-186/02: Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 191/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.8.2002
for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on                In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
intra-Community trade.                                                    of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
                                                                          employment of the applicant during the period in which he
(1) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2.                                                  was on secondment in the interests of the service. The
                                                                          applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
                                                                          decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
                                                                          protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                          officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
                                                                          nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
                                                                          infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-180/02)
                          (2002/C 191/51)                                 Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.
                                                                          against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-186/02)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (2002/C 191/52)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by Georgios                          (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers,                                application was drafted: Italian)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
      Administration and Management Directorate Luxem-
      bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:                                        in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
                                                                          Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnarò and Patrik Santer.
      —     fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
            of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing             The applicant claims that the Court should:
            his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
            travel expenses and applying to his salary the                annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
            weighting applicable to Greece;                               Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                          in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
      —     to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that           Fifth Unit of the Opposition Division and consequently
            decision, any amount in general;                              uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
                                                                          undertaking.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg,                  The Community trade            Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek                 mark concerned:                Registration            application
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec-                                        No 880211, registration sought
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment                                             in respect of goods and services
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further-                                          within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary,                                                irons, steam irons and ironing
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.                                               boards)
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 191/31
Proprietor of the right to    Diesel SpA                                          ber 1986, and accordingly declare that Ente per le Ville
the trade mark or sign                                                            Vesuviane is entitled to final payment of the assistance
asserted by way of oppo-                                                          received until now and to have the remainder of the
sition in the opposition                                                          funding paid to it as requested on 13 December 2000
proceedings:                                                                      and still outstanding;
Trade mark or sign            Italian trade mark ‘DIESEL’ regis-
asserted by way of oppo-      tered under No 686092 and Com-               —      order the European Commission to pay the costs.
sition in the opposition      munity trade mark ‘DIESEL’, regis-
proceedings:                  tered under No 000743401 in
                              respect of goods within Classes 7,
                              11 and 21 and 11 and 21 respect-
                              ively
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Oppo-         Registration application dismissed
sition Division:
                                                                           The applicant in the present case, a public-law consortium
Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed
                                                                           whose object is to protect and improve the complex of sites
Appeal:
                                                                           consisting of the Ville Vesuviane (the towns around Vesuvius)
                                                                           dating from the 18th Century, is contesting the decision of the
Grounds of claim:             Total lack of similarity between             Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European
                              the two trade marks and no likeli-           Commission D (2002) 810111, 102504, of 13 March 2002
                              hood whatever of confusion or                bringing to an end the financial assistance paid to the applicant
                              association. Moreover, the party             itself, pursuant to Commission Decision No C (86) 2029/120
                              which brought opposition pro-                of 18 December 1986 of the European Regional Development
                              ceedings has not adduced evi-                Fund (intervention No 86/05/04/054).
                              dence of serious use of the mark
                              in respect of goods within the
                              classes in concerned.
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:
                                                                           —      the contested measures were adopted on the mistaken
                                                                                assumption that the delays in the project being financed
                                                                                were not as a result of the relevant work being subject to
                                                                                a suspension for judicial reasons, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of
Action brought on 18 June 2002 by Ente per le Ville                               20 July 1993 (1). On the contrary, while the project was
Vesuviane against Commission of the European Com-                                 under way, the applicant was obliged to initiate several
                            munities                                              court proceedings seeking the removal of the occupants
                                                                                of numerous areas and buildings which were to be
                                                                                restored as part of the improvements in the Vesuvius
                        (Case T-189/02)                                           towns of Favorita and Ruggiero. The applicant further
                                                                                claims that the defendant failed to make inquiries in that
                        (2002/C 191/53)                                           regard.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         —      its rights of defence were infringed in that, contrary to
                                                                                Article 4 of Commission Decision No C (86) 2020 of
                                                                                18 December 1986, the applicant, who was in receipt of
                                                                                assistance, did not have the opportunity to submit its
                                                                                own observations to the Commission before the adoption
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         by the latter of the contested decision.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 2002 by Ente per le Ville
Vesuviane, represented by Enrico Soprano, avvocato.
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending
                                                                               Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for
                                                                               implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/898 as regards the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    European Regional Development Fund (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 34).
—     annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Regional
      Policy of the European Commission No D (2002) 810111
      of 13 March 2002 and No (86) 2029/120 of 18 Decem-


title: Case C-438/06: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg, Germany) — Otmar Greser v Bundesagentür für Arbeit (Preliminary reference — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/14

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg, Germany) — Otmar Greser v Bundesagentür für Arbeit
   (Case C-438/06) (1)

   (Preliminary reference - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 199/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Würzburg, Germany
   Parties

      Applicant: Otmar Greser

      Defendant: Bundesagentür für Arbeit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Würzburg — Interpretation of Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Calculation of the unemployment benefits of a boatman on the Rhein (‘Rheinschiffer’) who was resident, during his last period of employment, on the territory of a Member State other than the State of employment and returned, in accordance with his contract of employment, only every second week to his place of residence — Classification of that worker as ‘a frontier worker’ or ‘a worker, other than a frontier worker’
   Operative part of the order
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Sozialgericht Würzburg by decision of 28 September 2006 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.