title: Case T-15-02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  15 March 2006  — BASF AG v Commission (Competition — Cartels in the vitamin products sector — Rights of the defence — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Determination of the starting amount of the fine — Deterrent effect — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader or instigator — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Professional secrecy and principle of sound administration)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 March 2006 — BASF AG v Commission
   (Case T-15-02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels in the vitamin products sector - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determination of the starting amount of the fine - Deterrent effect - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader or instigator - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Professional secrecy and principle of sound administration)
   (2006/C 108/25)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): BASF AG (Ludwigshafen, Germany) (represented by: N. Levy, J. Temple-Lang, Solicitor, R. O'Donoghue, Barrister and C. Federsen, Solicitor)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Wainwright and L. Pignataro-Nolin, Agents)
   Application for
   APPLICATION for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant by Article 3(b) of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins) (OJ 2003 L 6, p. 1),
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Sets the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant in respect of the infringements relating to vitamins C and D3, beta-carotene and carotinoids by Article 3(b) of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins) as follows:

                           —

                           infringement relating to vitamin C: EUR 10,875 million;

                           —

                           infringement relating to vitamin D3: EUR 5,6 million;

                           —

                           infringement relating to beta-carotene: EUR 16 million;

                           —

                           infringement relating to carotinoids: EUR 15,5 million;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3)

               Orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002


title: Case T-580/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/35

         Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)
   (Case T-580/13)
   2014/C 45/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Real Express Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Anitoae, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1519/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in blue and red containing the verbal element ‘real’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 512 609

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade marks Nos 38 089 and 80 065

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-4/16: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/38

         Order of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)
   (Case T-4/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 305/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rabbit, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O'Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: DMG Media Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 (Case R 2133/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DMG Media Ltd and Rabbit, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Rabbit, Inc. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case C-93/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Ornua Co-operative Limited, formerly The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — EU trade mark — Unitary character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(1)(b) and (c) — Uniform protection of the right conferred by an EU trade mark against the likelihood of confusion and detriment to reputation — Peaceful coexistence of that mark with a national mark used by a third party in part of the European Union — Absence of peaceful coexistence elsewhere in the European Union — Perception of the average consumer — Differences of perception which may exist in different parts of the European Union)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Ornua Co-operative Limited, formerly The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, SL
   (Case C-93/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - EU trade mark - Unitary character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) and (c) - Uniform protection of the right conferred by an EU trade mark against the likelihood of confusion and detriment to reputation - Peaceful coexistence of that mark with a national mark used by a third party in part of the European Union - Absence of peaceful coexistence elsewhere in the European Union - Perception of the average consumer - Differences of perception which may exist in different parts of the European Union))
   (2017/C 300/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ornua Co-operative Limited, formerly The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited

      Defendant: Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(1)(b) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, in part of the European Union, an EU trade mark and a national mark peacefully coexist does not allow the conclusion that in another part of the European Union, where peaceful coexistence between that EU trade mark and the sign identical to that national mark is absent, there is no likelihood of confusion between that EU trade mark and that sign.

               2.

               Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the elements which, according to the European Union trade marks court hearing an infringement action, are relevant for assessing whether the proprietor of an EU trade mark is entitled to prohibit the use of a sign in part of the European Union not covered by that action, may be taken into account by that court to assess whether that proprietor is entitled to prohibit the use of that sign in the part of the European Union which is the subject of the infringement action, provided that the market conditions and the sociocultural circumstances are not significantly different in one of those parts of the European Union and in the other.

               3.

               Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, in part of the European Union, an EU trade mark with a reputation and a sign peacefully coexist does not allow the conclusion that in another part of the European Union, where that peaceful coexistence is absent, there is due cause legitimising the use of that sign.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case T-686/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/82

         Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-686/15)
   (2016/C 048/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 915

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2517/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 915 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

               —

               order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-618/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-396/10 Zucchetti Rubinetteria v European Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-396/10 Zucchetti Rubinetteria v European Commission
   (Case C-618/13 P)
   2014/C 45/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (represented by: M. Condinanzi, P. Ziotti and N. Vasile, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court dismissed the action in Case T-396/10 with regard to the form of order seeking cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures);

               —

               Give final judgment in the matter in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and cancel, or at least reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the fine imposed by the abovementioned Commission decision;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-396/10.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Infringement of EU law with regard to the calculation of the fines and the assessment of the gravity of the infringement, contradictions and inadequate reasoning, as well as a failure by the General Court fully to exercise its power of review. In particular, infringement of Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principles of personal responsibility, proportionality and equal treatment in the application of penalties in competition-law matters.
   The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court found the contested decision to be contradictory and unlawful in so far as it recognised that Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA committed a less serious infringement than the multinational firms participating in the cartel, as it did not take part therein and was unaware of the extension of the agreement to markets other than the Italian market; however, the General Court did not draw from that the appropriate conclusions for the purposes of setting the fine. The appellant argues that the application of the same multipliers and the failure to take account of mitigating circumstances — with the consequent dismissal of the action, also in respect of cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed — thus amount to an infringement of the general principles mentioned above and of the provisions of points 25 and 29 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

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


title: Case T-664/13: Action brought on 10 December 2013 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/35

         Action brought on 10 December 2013 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)
   (Case T-664/13)
   2014/C 112/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Malaga, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2013 given in Case R 347/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 10 114 081

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark No 9 062 902 for the figurative mark in red and white containing the verbal element ‘PETCO’ for goods and services in Classes 31 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.


title: Case C-683/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/7

         Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-683/15)
   (2016/C 078/08)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K.-P. Wojcik, M. Heller and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 130(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2014/59/EU at the daily rate of EUR 51 456 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2014/59/EU expired on 31 December 2014.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.


title: Case C-508/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/109/EC — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Application for long-term resident status — Application for a residence permit in a second Member State made by a third-country national who has already acquired long-term resident status in a first Member State or by a member of his family — Amount of the charges levied by the competent authorities — Disproportionate charges — Obstacle to the exercise of the right of residence)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-508/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Application for long-term resident status - Application for a residence permit in a second Member State made by a third-country national who has already acquired long-term resident status in a first Member State or by a member of his family - Amount of the charges levied by the competent authorities - Disproportionate charges - Obstacle to the exercise of the right of residence)
   2012/C 174/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Intervening party in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: T. Papadopoulou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Application for long-term resident status — Administrative charges — Excessive and unfair amounts — Means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying (i) to third-country nationals seeking long-term resident status in the Netherlands, (ii) to those who, having acquired that status in a Member State other than the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are seeking to exercise the right to reside in that Member State, and (iii) to members of their families seeking authorisation to accompany or join them, excessive and disproportionate administrative charges which are liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-533/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014  — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-533/14)
   (2015/C 065/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Toorank Productions BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, which is also used as a beverage base for the production of a variety of other beverages, which has an alcoholic strength by volume of 16 % vol, which, as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) is neutral with regard to colour, smell and taste, and to which no distilled alcohol has been added, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?

               2.

               Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % vol, obtained by mixing the beverage (base) described in question 1 above with sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents and preservatives, and which does not contain any distilled alcohol, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?


title: Case T-717/16: Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/31

      Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)
      (Case T-717/16)
      (2016/C 441/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head) — Application for registration No 14 588 933

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 1195/2016-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-534/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/5

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case C-534/12 P)
   2013/C 71/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV.

                           (a)

                           Declare to be admissible the application lodged by the appellant on 27 December 2011 for revision of the order of the First Chamber of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in the proceedings already decided by the General Court in Case T-241/03, the application of 27 December 2011 having initiated the proceedings at first instance and, as a consequence, order that the case be proceeded with as a matter of law, and

                           (b)

                           order the respondent to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in connection with the present proceedings; or

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court so that it may give a fresh ruling on the admissibility of the application of 27 December 2011 and, subsequently, if appropriate, proceed with the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  Errores in procedendo, affecting the appellant’s interests, inherent in the serious errores in iudicando, including, inter alia: (a) total failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons in the order under appeal; (b) breach of essential procedural requirements; (c) breach of the principle of mandatory jurisdiction on the part of the proper court specified by law to hear a case; (d) breach of the first subparagraph of Article 64(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, of Article 127(1) and (2) of those rules and, lastly, of the procedural right by which the appellant is vested with authority to propose to the Court, at any time, a measure of organisation of procedure relating to the case.

               2.

               Breach of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               3.

               Breach of a principle of law contained in a judgment of the EU judicature, namely the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 October 1977 in Case C-56/75 REV Elz v EC.

               4.

               Total failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons in the order under appeal, on the grounds, inter alia, of distortion and misapplication of the facts and the appellant’s assertions.


title: Case T-109/00: Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 192/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.7.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                  The applicant is a Notariatsassessor (associate notary) in Baden-
                                                                            Württemberg (Germany) and acts in a legal advisory capacity
                          (Case T-107/00)                                   there. In 1994 he applied for admission to the aptitude test in
                                                                            accordance with the German Law for admission to the
                                                                            profession of Rechtsanwalt (Eignungsprüfungsgesetz). That
                          (2000/C 192/32)
                                                                            application was refused by the German authorities and courts
                                                                            at several instances. The applicant now argues that the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Eignungsprüfungsgesetz was enacted in implementation of
                                                                            Directive 89/48/EEC (1). He maintains that, after the dismissal
                                                                            decisions by the German authorities and courts, he is individu-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ally and directly affected by that directive, and that Article 1 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  the directive infringes Article 12 EC and several fundamental
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                      rights. The provision gives nationals of other Member States,
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), with Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   who hold a diploma satisfying the formal requirements of the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon,               directive, access to the profession of German Rechtsanwalt by
Brussels.                                                                   passing the aptitude test, whereas German nationals holding
                                                                            diplomas of equal value are denied that possibility. In the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 applicant’s submission, that constitutes an inequality in treat-
                                                                            ment that should lead to the annulment of the directive.
— annul the implied rejection of the request for review
     submitted by the CIF to the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989, p. 16.
     Commission on 20 January 2000 and also, if appropriate,
     the letter, dated 17 February 2000, from Mary E. Preston;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                            Action brought on 2 May 2000 by British American
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Tobacco International (Investments) limited against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-40/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v                                           (Case T-111/00)
Commission.
                                                                                (2000/C 192/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt                            European Communities on 2 May 2000 by British American
          against the Council of the European Union                         Tobacco International (Investments) limited (London,
                                                                            England), represented by Mr. Scott Crosby of Kemmler Rapp
                          (Case T-109/00)                                   Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.
                          (2000/C 192/33)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — annul the Decision of the Commission of 8 March 2000
                                                                                refusing access to the minutes of the Excise Duty Com-
                    (Language of the case: German)                               mittee of its meetings of 29-30 April 1998 and
                                                                                28-29 October 1999 relating to the apparent decision of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                          the Committee to classify expanded tobacco as an excisable
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       product and to confirm that apparent decision respectively;
Communities on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt, residing in
Schwäbisch Hall (Germany), represented by Joachim Schorpp,                  — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
Rechtsanwalt, Delitzsch (Germany).                                               to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December
     1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-                The applicant explains that, as a tobacco company, it has a
     education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-                       vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
     fessional education and training of at least three years’              tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
     duration void in relation to the professions of Rechtsanwalt           of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1) and thus an excisable
     (attorney) and Patentanwalt (patent agent).                            product. The applicant considers the product an intermediary


title: Case F-136/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Carpenito v Council

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/37

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Carpenito v Council
      (Case F-136/12) (1)

      (2014/C 71/74)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 75.


title: Case T-166/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents and sound recordings — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission
   (Case T-166/05) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and sound recordings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)
   2009/C 90/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing Borax Europe Ltd access to the recordings of the meeting of 5 and 6 October 2004, to two drafts of the summary record of that meeting, to thirteen comments from experts, to two comments from industry representatives and to the document submitted by the Danish Rapporteur;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case T-278/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2012 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD — Earlier national, international and Community word marks WESERGOLD, Wesergold, and WeserGold — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctiveness of the earlier marks)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2012 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD)
   (Case T-278/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD - Earlier national, international and Community word marks WESERGOLD, Wesergold, and WeserGold - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctiveness of the earlier marks)
   2012/C 343/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by A. Marx and M. Schaeffer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and also to pay the costs of the applicant;

               3.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-285/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A. v Administración del Estado

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-285/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/33
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Question referred

   Did the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 permit Member States to enact legislation whereby, for transactions between connected parties where the price was patently lower than the open market value, the taxable amount was other than that determined by Article 11A.(1)(a) to be generally applicable — namely, the consideration — by extending the scope of the rules on application of goods and services for private use (as was done by Article 79(5) of the Law on VAT, before its amendment by Law 36/2006 of 29 November), when the specific procedure provided for in Article 27 of the Sixth Directive to obtain authorisation for derogation from the general rule was not followed, such derogation being obtained by Spain only after the Council Decision of 15 May 2006?

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


               8.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 457/12

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein, dated 25 September 2015, in the Case of Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung
   (Case E-24/15)
   (2016/C 457/10)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 25 September 2015 from Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein (Princely Court of Appeal, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 1 October 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung, on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the fact that under the second sentence of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 the debtor institution shall be bound by the findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence preclude the debtor institution from challenging those findings – and thus the information stated in the detailed medical report provided in form E 213 – in its procedure?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does that binding effect also apply in court proceedings which, under national procedural rules, follow on from the proceedings before a debtor institution?


title: Case T-592/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014  — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BTS — Earlier Community and national figurative marks TBS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS)
   (Case T-592/10) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BTS - Earlier Community and national figurative marks TBS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 129/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by M. López Camba and J. L. Rivas Zurdo initially, then J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Technisynthese SARL (Saint-Pierre-Montlimart, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 1380/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Technisynthese SARL and El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-283/02: Action brought on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 233/17
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) dated 5 July 2002, which             Pleas in law and main arguments
was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrew Owusu and
1) N. B. Jackson (trading as Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas),
2) Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, 3) Mammee Bay Club Ltd, 4) The               The Italian Government claims that, by adopting the contested
Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, 5) Consulting Services              implementing regulation, the Commission has, de iure,
Ltd, 6) Town & Country Resorts Ltd, on the following                    accorded limited and inconsistent protection to ‘traditional
questions:                                                              terms’, in particular to Italian ‘traditional terms’, contrary to
                                                                        the guiding principles of the rules in the sector, as clarified in
                                                                        the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (2).
(1) Is it inconsistent with the Brussels Convention on Jurisdic-        This has not only prejudiced the efforts directed towards the
      tion and the Enforcement of Judgments 1968, where a               reclassification of Community produce, but also the interests
      Claimant contends that jurisdiction is founded on                 of producers and consumers, as recognised by the Treaty, the
      Article 2, for a court of a Contracting State to exercise a       protection of which constitutes the purpose of the common
      discretionary power, available under its national law, to         agricultural policy and of free competition.
      decline to hear proceedings brought against a person
      domiciled in that State in favour of the courts of a non-
      Contracting State:                                                (1 ) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002
                                                                             of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, desig-
      (a)  if the jurisdiction of no other Contracting State                 nation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector prod-
           under the 1968 Convention is in issue;                            ucts (OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1).
                                                                        (2 ) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of
                                                                             17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine.
      (b) if the proceedings have no other connecting factors
           to any other Contracting State?
(2) If the answer to question (1)(a) or (1)(b) is yes, is it
      consistent in all the circumstances or only in some and if
      so in which?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic                                            (Case C-287/02)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 233/28)
                         (Case C-283/02)
                         (2002/C 233/27)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        represented by Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, Abogada del Estado,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            Embassy, 4 - 6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
Communities on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent and M. Fiorilli,
avvocato dello Stato.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      annul the contested decision (1) as regards the financial
                                                                               corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
                                                                               contested by this action;
—     annul Article 24 and, to the extent of the complaints
      advanced to that effect, Annexes A and B of Commission
      Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 ( 1) of 29 April 2002.                —      order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-458/11: Action brought on 18 August 2011 — Riche v Council and Commission

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/28

         Action brought on 18 August 2011 — Riche v Council and Commission
   (Case T-458/11)
   2011/C 298/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Riche (Meursac, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Make reparation in full of the loss suffered because of the financial penalties imposed, namely the sum of EUR 136 600;

               —

               Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses:

                           —

                           relating to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union,

                           —

                           also relating to all the proceedings before all the internal tribunals;

               —

               Fix the amount for non-pecuniary damage at a lump-sum of EUR 100 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 11 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest and serious disregard of the limits on the discretion of the Council and the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Council and/or by the Commission of the decision of the Member States to exclude wine spirits such as those produced by the applicant from the list of agricultural products.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 40 TFEU as regards the wine producers concerned who have distillation plants enabling them to transform into alcohol the production in excess of the quantity normally produced.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty consisting, firstly, of an infringement of the rights acquired by the producers concerned and, secondly, of an infringement of the legitimate expectation placed in the fact that they could themselves carry out the transformation into wine spirits of their production in excess of the quantity normally produced.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of estoppel, referring to the prohibition on a public authority from contradicting itself to the detriment of third parties.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging wrongful interference with the freedom to produce industrial goods and put them on the market.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging wrongful extension of the application of the contested regulation to cases where there are no applications for funding.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty of care.

               11.

               Eleventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2002 in Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Order for costs)

text:
C 261/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.10.2002
1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                    A. Whelan) — application for annulment of Commission
                                                                              Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a
                                                                              proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
                                                                              of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium
                                                                              gluconate) or, alternatively, for the reduction of the fine
                                                                              imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of that decision —
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                                                                              M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
                            of 9 July 2002                                    Registrar, made an order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of
                                                                              which is as follows:
in Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European
                             Parliament (1)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on this action.
(Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-                     2.    The Commission shall pay the costs.
ment pension scheme — Suspension of payment — Con-
                  firmatory act — Admissibility)
                                                                              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 68.
                           (2002/C 261/24)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana, former Member of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
European Parliament, residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy),                                            INSTANCE
represented by W Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, lawyers,
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                                           of 8 August 2002
— application for annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 26 March 2001 suspending payment of the
pension of the applicant following his election to the Regional               in Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesell-
Council for the Region of Umbria (Italy) — the Court of First                  schaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                 (Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC)
order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                       No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                    (2002/C 261/26)
2.     The applicant shall pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ 2001 C 245.
                                                                              In Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft
                                                                              mbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), VVG (International)
                                                                              Ltd, established in Europort Gibraltar (Gibraltar), Metalsivas
                                                                              Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Vienna
                                                                              (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Com-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen
                                                                              and B. Eggers,) — application for suspension of the operation
                            of 9 July 2002                                    of Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March
                                                                              2002 imposing provisional safeguard measures against
in Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG v Commission of the                        imports of certain steel products (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1) or of
                     European Communities ( 1)                                any other provisional measure likely to permit the applicants
                                                                              to import into the Community, in addition to the tariff quota
(Action for annulment — Action which has become devoid                        and free of additional duties, 95 129 tonnes of alloy hot rolled
    of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Order for costs)                     flat products covered by reference 4 of the said Regulation —
                                                                              the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
                           (2002/C 261/25)                                    on 8 August 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: German)                           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG, established in Basel
(Switzerland), represented by R. Bechtold and M. Karl, lawyers,


title: Case T-82/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEO)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/50

         Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEO)
   (Case T-82/14)
   2014/C 112/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maquet GmbH & Co. KG (Rastatt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2013 in Case R 2292/2012-4 and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark LUCEO, No 8 554 974;
               In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark LUCEO for goods in Classes, 10, 12 and 28 — Community trade mark No 8 554 974

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Maquet GmbH & Co. KG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 74 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-505/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritoriyalna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna (Income tax — Article 2 TEU — Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality — Farmers’ right to a reduction of income tax — Exclusion of natural persons carrying out agricultural activity — Implementation of EU law — No implementation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/24

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritoriyalna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna
   (Case C-505/13) (1)

   ((Income tax - Article 2 TEU - Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality - Farmers’ right to a reduction of income tax - Exclusion of natural persons carrying out agricultural activity - Implementation of EU law - No implementation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 409/35
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Levent Redzheb Yumer

      Defendant: Direktor na Teritoriyalna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria), by decision of 5 September 2013.

               2.

               The first and second questions referred are manifestly inadmissible in so far as they relate to the interpretation of Article 2 TEU.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95: Spyridoulia Alexopoulou v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Classification in grade - Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
No C 315/ 14        1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 28 September 1995                                                   of 5 October 1995
in Case T-164/94 : Ferchimex SA v. Council of the European            in Case T-17/95 : Spyridoulia Alexopoulou v. Commission
                              Union (')                                             of the European Communities ( l )
(Anti-dumping duty on potash — Determination ofnormal                 (Officials — Classification in grade — Article 31 (2) of the
          value — Injury — Right to a fair hearing)                                          Staff Regulations)
                           ( 95/C 315/29 )                                                      ( 95/C 315/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      In Case T-17/95 : Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, an official of the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                      Brussels , represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
In Case T-164/94: Ferchimex SA, established in Antwerp                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
( Belgium ), represented by Alastair Sutton, of the Bar of
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
England and Wales, and Aristotelis Kaplanidis, of the
Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for service in                      Gianluigi Valsesia and Fabrizio Minneci ) — application for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,               the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of
v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent,
                                                                      5 April 1994 inasmuch as it appoints the applicant to grade
                                                                      A7, step 5 , and refuses by implication to appoint her to
Jorge Monteiro, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ),
                                                                      grade A6 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
supported by Commission of the European Communities
( Agent : Eric White ) and Association des Producteurs                composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M.
                                                                      Barrington and A. Saggio , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Européens de Chlorure de Potassium ( APEP), established in
                                                                      given a judgment on 5 October 1995 , in which it:
Brussels , represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
Rechtsanwälte, Cologne — application for the annulment
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3068/92 of 23 October                1 . Annuls the decision of the Commission of 5 April 1994
 1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                inasmuch as it deals with the applicant's classification in
potassium chloride originating in Belarus, Russia or Ukraine               grade.
( OJ 1992 L 308 , p. 41 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of: K.                      2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Lenaerts, President and R. Schintgen, C. P. Briet, R.
Garcίa-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September             (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
 1995 , in which it :
 1.  Dismisses the action .
2 . Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     costs of the Council and of the Association des                                        of 11 October 1995
     Producteurs Européens de Chlorure de Potassium .                 in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93 : Michael Baltsavias
                                                                            v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                       (Official — Personal file — Duty to provide assistance —
 3.  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs .                                        Non-material damage)
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/31 )
 (>) OJ No C 52 , 23 . 2 . 1993 .                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93 : Michael Baltsavias,
                                                                       an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Francis
                                                                       Herbert and Jimena López-Menchero, of the Brussels Bar,


title: Case C-344/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
C 226/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
Communities on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,                    —     Infringement of Article 253 EC (failure to state reasons),
represented by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an                       on the ground that the contested regulation is not based
address for service in Luxembourg.                                             on a technical study showing why it is necessary;
                                                                         —     Misuse of powers, in that the tariff quota has been allo-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    cated arbitrarily between the countries benefitting from it.
—     annul Council Regulation No 975/2003 (1) of 5 June
      2003 opening and providing for the administration of a
      tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN              (1) OJ L 141, 7.6.2003, p. 1.
      codes 16041411, 16041418 and 16042070;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
The Kingdom of Spain submits that Regulation No 975/2003                                           (Case C-344/03)
infringes Community law for the following reasons:
                                                                                (2003/C 226/26)
—     Breach of the principle of Community preference, given
      that measures such as those adopted by the contested               An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
      regulation are appropriate only where Community pro-               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 August
      duction is inadequate, which has not been established. The         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
      Spanish tuna canning industry is particularly prejudiced           sented by G. Valero Jordana and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with
      by this regulation;                                                an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Distortion of competition in the market: owing to the fact         The Commission claims that the Court should:
      that a product has been put onto the market on more
      advantageous conditions than those laid down in the gen-           1.   Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
      eral tariff arrangements may give rise to imbalances in the             obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
      market concerned, with negative economic consequences;                  conservation of wild birds (1), as amended by the 1994
                                                                              Act of Accession, inasmuch as the Republic of Finland has
                                                                              not applied the derogation laid down in Article 9(1) of the
—     Procedural irregularities in that the contested regulation is           directive in accordance with the criteria laid down therein,
      not based on any technical study showing why it is nee-                 since it has not indicated that the conditions for a deroga-
      ded. Nor is Community production of canned tuna inade-                  tion under that provision are fulfilled in the case of spring
      quate and such as to provide grounds justifying the                     hunting of certain water birds in mainland Finland and the
      regulation;                                                             district of Åland, as regards in particular the application of
                                                                              the criteria ‘no other satisfactory solution’ and ‘small num-
                                                                              bers’ with respect especially to the species eider (Somateria
—     Infringement of Article 12 of the EC-ACP Partnership                    mollissima), golden-eye (Bucephala clangula), red-breasted
      Agreement, since the ACP States were not informed of                    merganser (Mergus serrator), goosander (Mergus mergan-
      the adoption of a measure affecting them;                               ser), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and tufted duck (Aythya
                                                                              fuligula), and
—     Infringement of the preferential agreements with the ACP
      and GSP-Drugs (Generalised System of Preferences —                 2.   Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
      Drugs) States, since the tariff quota to be allocated pur-
      suant to the measures adopted in the contested regulation
      will render ineffective the preferential regimes referred to       Pleas in law and main arguments
      by allowing canned tuna from industrially developed
      countries to compete in the Community market with                  The Commission submits that the ‘no other satisfactory solu-
      that from ACP and GSP-Drugs States;                                tion’ criterion in the directive is not satisfied if autumn hunting
                                                                         of the same species is possible, albeit in smaller numbers and
                                                                         possibly in more difficult conditions from the hunter's point of
—     Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since          view or in different hunting locations. The Commission con-
      investments made by Community traders in the ACP and               siders that the ‘no other satisfactory solution’ requirement is to
      GSP-Drugs States will be affected, account being taken of          be assessed in a concrete and specific manner, not abstractly
      the conditions for market access for products originating          and at a general level. Local circumstances must be taken into
      in those countries;                                                account in the assessment.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.9.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 226/15
According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the                  Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined                                 (2003/C 226/28)
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level            By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the              register of Case C-131/02: Commission of the European
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other              Communities v Republic of Austria.
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,
    p. 1.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/29)
Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of                    By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/02: Commission of the European
                         (Case C-345/03)                                Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                         (2003/C 226/27)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/30)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
1.   declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 register of Case C-407/02: Commission of the European
     Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            Communities v Hellenic Republic.
     of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehi-
     cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
     obligations under that directive;
2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/31)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
21 April 2002.                                                          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-10/03: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Republic of Finland.
(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Action brought on 15 December 1995 by AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and six other wood pulp companies against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-227/95)

text:
No C 64/ 16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 15 December 1995 by AssiDoman Kraft
                                                                      Products AB and six other wood pulp companies against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants, two operators of discotheques established in
France and the trade organization of which they are                                             ( Case T-227/95 )
members, contest the Decision of the Commission of                                                 ( 96/C 64/34 )
13 October 1995 , which in their view does not comply with
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 January in                             (Language of the case: English)
Case T-5/93 Tremblay . In that judgment, the Court of First
Instance annulled the Decision of the Commission of
12 November 1992 concerning an agreement between the                  An action against the Commission of the European
copyright-management societies in the other Member                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
States, which had resulted in Sacem abusing its dominant              Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
position by imposing excessive and discriminatory tariff              1995 by AssiDoman Kraft Products AB and six other wood
levels, in so far as that Decision 'rejects the applicants '          pulp companies, represented by John Pheasant, Solicitor
allegation that the market has been partitioned as a result of        and Christophe Raux, Avocat, with an address for service in
an alleged agreement beteween Societe des Auteurs,                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue
Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique and the                           Goethe .
copyright-management societies in the other Member
States '.
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should:
After resuming, in a purely formal manner, its examination            — annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 1995 ,
of that part of the complaint, the Commission officially
rejected it on 23 June 1995 on the basis of Article 6 of              — order the Commission to take all necessary steps to
Regulation ( EEC ) No 99/63 . Despite the observations                     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in
submitted by the applicants, the defendant institution                     Joined Cases . C-89, 104 , 114, 116 , 117 and
repeated its position in the contested Decision . According to             125—129/85 A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission of
the Commission, it is solely for the national courts to assess             31 March 1993 and, in particular, to repay to the
whether a concerted practice exists; they may of course                    applicants the fines paid by each of them or their
resort to a reference for a preliminary ruling under                       predecessors in title respectively, in the amounts set out
Article 177 .                                                              at Annex 6 thereto,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay interest on the said sums
The applicants maintain, first, that it is apparent from the               at
contested Decision that the Commission has not complied
with the requirements of the Court of First Instance and that                ( i ) the prevailing EMCF and EMI rates plus 1,5%
it did not in fact proceed to carry out an inquiry and the                          from the date on which the fines were paid by the
active investigations necessitated by the abovementioned                            Swedish addressees; or
judgment of 24 January 1995 . It has not, therefore,
complied with the obligations incumbent on an institution                  ( ii ) the prevailing base lending rate of the Banque
whose Act has been declared void, by taking the necessary                           Nationale de Belgique plus 1 % from the date on
measures under Article 176 to comply with the                                       which the fines were paid by the Swedish
judgment.                                                                           addressees,
The Commission was penalized by the Court because what                     in the amounts set out in Annex 9 to the application and
it did, and what it claimed to have done, was inadequate. It               continuing until the principal sum of the fines is repaid
was not open to it merely to act in the same way after the                 by the Commission, and
judgment was given as before . The Court annulled the
 Decision of the Commission because it did not constitute an          — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs .
 adequate response to the complaint of partitioning made
 against the agreement between copyright-management                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 societies . The Court did not annul the Decision and remit
 the matter to the Commission merely for that institution to          The applicants, or their predecessors in title, are among the
 refrain from carrying out an inquiry which, by reason of             addressees of the Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of
 their limited territorial jurisdiction, the national courts do        19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
 not have the means to undertake .
                                                                      of the EC Treaty (IV/29.725 — Wood Pulp ) by which the
                                                                       Commission imposed fines ranging from ECU 50 000 to
 The applicant further regards that conduct as a breach of the         ECU 500 000 . The applicants, who had never accepted the
 duty to provide a statement of reasons, as well as a misuse of        allegations of infringements, did not bring an application for
 powers .                                                              annulment of this Decision and paid the fines to the
                                                                       Commission. Upon application by other addressees of the
                                                                       Decision, the Court of Justice, by judgment of 31 March
                                                                       1993 in Joined Cases 89, 104 , 114 , 116 , 117 and 125 to
                                                                       129/85 , A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission, a number of the
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 3 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/ 17
infringements alleged by the Commission were found not to            — order the Council and/or Commission to pay the costs
exist by the Court which annulled in whole or in part the                  incurred by the applicant in making this application .
fines imposed by the Commission . Pursuant to that
judgment, the applicants requested the Commission to
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reimburse the fines paid by them . By the contested letter of
4 October 1995 signed by the Commissioner for
Competition, the Commission refused on the ground that               The applicant is a small family company which has been
the decision imposing the fines was still standing with regard       carrying on the business of a fur merchant since it was
to the applicants.                                                   established in the United Kingdom in 1963 , the great
                                                                     majority of the applicant's business ( about 80% ) depends
                                                                     on the use of fur pelts originating in and imported from the
The applicants submit that the effect of the Court's                 United States of America and Canada .
annulment of a Community Act is that the Act is void erga
omnes and ex tunc. The institution is thereafter required to
                                                                     Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91 of
consider or reconsider the position of all interested persons
                                                                     4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
in the light of the grounds and operative part of the Court's
                                                                     Community and the introduction into the Community of
judgment. The institution is also obliged to effect a restitutio
                                                                     pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
in integrum. This requires the restoration of the status quo
                                                                     originating in countries which catch them by means of
ante and the restitution of any unjust enrichment arising
                                                                     leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
from the invalid Act, and includes a duty to pay interest on
                                                                     international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308 ,
any monies held pursuant to the invalid Act.
                                                                     1991 , p. 1 ) purports to prohibit the import into the
                                                                     Community of pelts of certain species ( including musk rat )
In the light of the Court's judgment, Articles 1(1 ) and 1 ( 2 )     originating in certain third countries ( the 'import ban'). The
of the Wood Pulp Decision do not provide a lawful basis for          wording of Article 3(1 ), taken literally, suggests that that
the imposition of fines on any of the addressees referred to in      ban will have effect as from 1 January 1996 , and will apply
Articles 1 ( 1 ) or 1 ( 2 ). Any fines paid in respect of the        to fur pelts from all third countries . The mere prospect of
allegations contained in Articles 1(1 ) and 1 ( 2 ) cannot be        such a ban and the uncertainty of the manner of its
lawfully held by the Commission . The fines must therefore           implementation have already caused serious and continuing
be repaid with interest at a rate which reflects the value to        financial loss to the applicant. As and when the ban takes
the Commission of possession over a period of 10 years of            effect ( whether on 1 January 1996 or later ), the ban will
the fines paid by the Swedish addressees . Only thus can the         cause even more severe financial loss, of a nature and extent
status quo ante be restored.                                         that is likely to be such as effectively to destroy the
                                                                     applicant's business .
                                                                     The applicant submits that such losses are and will be the
                                                                     result of unlawful conduct on the part of the Council and/or
                                                                     Commission :
                                                                     ( a ) the Commission has acted unlawfully in adopting and
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by S. Lehrfreund                          implementing the import ban under Regulation ( EEC )
Limited against Council of the European Union and                            No 3254/91 in that:
          Commission of the European Communities
                        Case T-228/95 )                                          ( i ) the Council lacked competence under the EC
                            96/C 64/35 )                                               Treaty to adopt the import ban in Regulation
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 3254/91 ;
                (Language of the case: English)                                ( ii ) the import ban in Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91
                                                                                is contrary to the principle of proportionality;
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was brought                      ( iii ) the import ban in Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    was at the time of its adoption in breach of the
 Communities on 15 December 1995 by S. Lehrfreund                                      GATT and is now in breach of the WTO
 Limited, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark                                  Agreement.
 Hoskins, Barrister, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Thill & Pauly, 1 1 Avenue              ( b ) the Commission has unlawfully failed to adopt the
 de la Gare, L-1611 .                                                        measures necessary to implement Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                             No 3254/91 , which would have identified third
                                                                             countries from which fur pelts could be imported and
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                the necessary procedures for certifying the origin of
                                                                             such pelts;
 — order that the Council and/or Commission is liable in
      damages to the applicant under Articles 178 and 215 of          ( c ) the acts and omissions of the Commission and/or
      the EC Treaty, the quantum of such damages to be                        Council having created a situation of legal uncertainty
      assessed, and                                                          as to the scope and effective date of the import ban,