title: Case T-705/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Catalunya Banc v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/47

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Catalunya Banc v Commission
   (Case T-705/13)
   2014/C 52/92
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Catalunya Banc, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-290/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Angelina Fell, Florian Fell, Vincent Fell v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/39

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Angelina Fell, Florian Fell, Vincent Fell v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-290/17)
   (2017/C 239/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Angelina Fell, Florian Fell, Vincent Fell

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-111/02 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2002 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-237/00 between Patrick Reynolds and the European Parliament.

text:
29.6.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 156/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Appeal brought on 25 March 2002 by the European
gericht by order of that Court of 19 December 2001 in                  Parliament against the judgment delivered on 23 January
the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,                2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against              of the European Communities in Case T-237/00 between
                   Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                                   Patrick Reynolds and the European Parliament.
                                                                                (Case C-111/02 P)
                         (Case C-48/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/06)
                        (2002/C 156/05)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2002
                                                                       by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-237/00 between Patrick
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Reynolds and the European Parliament was brought before the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 March
(Federal Social Court) of 19 December 2001, received at the            2002 by the European Parliament, represented by Hannu von
Court Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling           Hertzen and Dominique Moore, acting as Agents, with an
in the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,             address for service in Luxembourg.
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                         Instance;
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting             —     decide the case definitively, by dismissing as unfounded
     a Member State of the Community from introducing                        the applications for annulment and for compensation;
     national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-
     ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down             —     alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First
     new restrictions on access to the employment market for                 Instance so that it may determine anew Mr Reynolds’
     Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on                   applications for annulment and for compensation;
     introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
     No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first            —     make such costs order as may be appropriate.
     legally resident and employed?
2.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              Pleas in law and main arguments
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
     of the Association between the European Economic                  —     Insufficiency of the reasoning of the Court of First
     Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers                      Instance concerning the obligation of the appointing
     employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers                 authority to comply with the ‘minimum conditions’ in
     engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through                order to terminate the secondment of an official in the
     a Member State of the Community without belonging to                    interests of the service to the post of secretary-general of
     the legitimate labour force of that Member State?                       a political group.
3.   Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-          —     Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the
     ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association                   powers of the appointing authority.
     between the European Economic Community and Turkey
     to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker is             —     Contradictory reasoning concerning the alleged discretion
     entitled to plead restriction, contrary to that protocol, of            of the appointing authority.
     the freedom to provide services?
                                                                       —     Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the
                                                                             rights of the defence.
4.   Does a restriction on the freedom to provide services
     within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional             —     Insufficient and contradictory reasoning concerning the
     Protocol exist where a Member State of the Community,                   significance of the consequences of reintegration on the
     from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,                   material situation of the person seconded.
     abolishes a previously-existing exemption from the
     requirement to have a work permit for Turkish lorry               —     If the Parliament has not committed any unlawful act by
     drivers engaged in international haulage who are                        adopting the contested decision, there can be no question,
     employed by a (Turkish) employer, established in Turkey?                in the present case, of the Community incurring any non-
                                                                             contractual liability.


title: Case T-593/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2015  — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Winder Controls — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 135a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Request for a hearing made prematurely in the application)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2015 — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls)
   (Case T-593/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Winder Controls - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 135a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Request for a hearing made prematurely in the application))
   (2015/C 089/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH (Haiger, Germany) (represented by: T. Sommer, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1261/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Winder Controls as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-127/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/18

         Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-127/05)
   (2005/C 143/26)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M.-J. Jonczy and N. Yerrell, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that in restricting the duty upon employers to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work to a duty to do this ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12th June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1);

               2.

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission's complaint is based upon Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which states that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all his employees at work ‘so far as is reasonable practicable’. The Commission considers that this qualification placed upon the employers' duty is incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of Directive 89/391/EEC (‘the Directive’).
   The Commission maintains that:

               i)

               Article 5(1) imposes responsibility upon the employer in relation to all events adverse to the health and safety of his workers unless the very special circumstances of Article 5(4) can be invoked.

               ii)

               This is confirmed inter alia by the legislative history of the Directive and the express rejection of the inclusion of a ‘so far as is reasonable practicable’ clause by the Community legislator.

               iii)

               By way of contrast, the UK's legislation (as interpreted by the national courts) permits an employer to escape responsibility if he can prove that the sacrifice involved in taking further measures, whether in money, time or trouble, would be grossly disproportionate to the risk.

               iv)

               This ‘balancing test’ is apparently applied by the national courts in all cases and not only in the exceptional situations falling within Article 5(4) of the Directive.

               v)

               Further, the assessment of what is ‘reasonably practicable’ permits the incorporation of considerations of the cost (in financial terms) to the employer, contrary to Article 5(4) of the Directive as read in light of its 13th recital.

      (1)  OJ L 183, p. 1.


title: Case T-23/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Staff case — Promotion — Award of priority points — Act not capable of being appealed — Preparatory acts — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission
   (Case T-23/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Staff case - Promotion - Award of priority points - Act not capable of being appealed - Preparatory acts - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 313/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Éric Gippini Fournier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Theissen and, subsequently, by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, and D. Waelbroek, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission decisions not to award the applicant any priority points under the 2003 promotion procedure; to reject his appeal to the Promotions Committee seeking the award of priority points of any description; and to refuse to award priority points for work in the interest of the institution and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-311/06: Action brought on 7 November 2006 – FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/65

         Action brought on 7 November 2006– FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA
   (Case T-311/06)
   (2006/C 326/138)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) Arysta Lifesciences SAS (Nogueres, France) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the EFSA's Conclusion Report, titled ‘Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Carbofuran’;

               —

               order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal regarding the (non) inclusion of Carbofuran in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

               —

               declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicants and the review of their Carbofuran dossiers of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of the amount of compensation either by agreement between the parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for the annulment of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) of 28 July 2006, concluding on the evaluation of the active substance Carbofuran under Directive 91/414/EEC (1) (‘The Plant Protection Products Directive’ or ‘PPPD’), in so far as it fails to include or to consider critical new evidence on Carbofuran submitted by the applicants to the designated Belgian Rapporteur Member State and to the extent it introduces new data requirements based on the retroactive application of new guidance documents, which the applicants could not foresee, and for which it was scientifically not possible to conduct and submit new studies in time.
   Specifically, the applicants claim that the contested measure represents the final procedural step in the administrative assessment of the substance under Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 (2) laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of the PPPD, as amended by Commission Regulation 1490/2002 (3) for which the applicants submit they are the sole notifiers and main data submitters.
   The applicants hereby also raise a plea of illegality against Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, which provides for a mandatory involvement of EFSA in the review of active substances covered by the second stage of the review, and by requiring the EFSA to assess whether the substance in question may be expected to meet the safety requirements of the PPPD and be included in its Annex I. Precisely, the applicants contend that the above-mentioned regulation, which entered into force at a time when the applicants had completed their complete dossiers, cannot retroactively apply to the ongoing Carbofuran review and consequently the contested measure cannot serve as a basis for a Commission proposal regarding the inclusion of Carbofuran in Annex I of the PPPD.
   Moreover, the applicants seek compensation for the damages caused to them as a result of the defendant's conduct during the Carbofuran evaluation process and in the adoption of the contested measure.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.

      (2)   OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25.

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 224, p. 23.


title: Case T-93/10: Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v (ECHA) (REACH — Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/30

         Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v (ECHA)
   (Case T-93/10) (1)

   (REACH - Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2013/C 114/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes (Luchana-Baracaldo, Spain); Cindu Chemicals BV, (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Deza, a.s., (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S, (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd, (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Rütgers Germany GmbH, (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV, (Zelzate, Belgium); and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o., established in Kędzierzyn-Koźle (Poland)) (represented by: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana)

      Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer,)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA published on 13 January 2010 identifying pitch, coal tar, high temperature (EC No 266-028-2) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-48/14: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Pfizer v Commission and EMA

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/31

         Order of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Pfizer v Commission and EMA
   (Case T-48/14) (1)

   (2015/C 056/44)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-187/04: Action brought on 22 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/3

         Action brought on 22 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-187/04)
   (2004/C 179/05)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Wiedner and G. Bambara, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, since ANAS S.p.A. awarded the concession for the construction and management of the Valtrompia motorway to the Società per l'autostrada Brescia-Verona-Vicenza-Padova p.a., by direct concession by means of a contract signed on 7 December 1999 without prior publication of a contract notice, and where the requirements for such a concession were not met, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procedures for the award of public works contracts and in particular Articles 3(1) and 11(3), (6) and (7) thereof;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay to the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to the Commission, ANAS's concession relating to the construction and management of the Valtrompia motorway without prior publication of a contract notice does not comply with Directive 93/37/EEC and in particular with Articles 3(1) and 11(3), (6) and (7) thereof.
   Article 3 of the Directive provides for the application of certain advertising rules at Community level where the contracting authorities conclude a public works concession contract if the value of that contract exceeds EUR 5 million. In particular, under Article 11(3) of the directive, contracting authorities wishing to award a works concession contract must make known that intention by means of a contract notice to be sent, pursuant to Article 11(7) of the directive, to the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Since the contract for the construction and management of the Valtrompia motorway is worth approximately EUR 640 million, it clearly should have been the subject of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.


title: Case C-123/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg by order of thatcourt of 4 February 2004 in the case of IndustriasNucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against UBS AG

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg by order of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against UBS AG
   (Case C-123/04)
   (2004/C 106/57)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against UBS AG on the following questions:

               1.

               Do the terms ‘processing, conversion or shaping’ in the first paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty also encompass the enrichment of uranium?

               2.

               Does an undertaking having its seat outside the territory of the EAEC Treaty pursue all or any of its activities in the territory of the Euratom Community within the meaning of Article 196 (b) of the EAEC Treaty if it maintains with an undertaking having its seat in the territory of the Euratom Community a commercial relationship for

                           (a)

                           the supply of raw material for the production of enriched uranium by, and the procurement of enriched uranium from, the undertaking having its seat in the territory of the Euratom Community

                           (b)

                           the storage thereof with another undertaking having its seat in the territory of the Euratom Community?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Does Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty require the material supplied for processing, conversion or shaping and the material subsequently returned to be identical in substance, apart from the physical changes associated with those processes?

                           (b)

                           Or is it sufficient for the processed material to be commensurate in terms of quantity and quality with the material supplied?

                           (c)

                           Is the application of Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty precluded where the material returned cannot be attributed to any material supplied by the consignee?

                           (d)

                           Is the application of Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty precluded where the undertaking carrying out the process acquires title to the raw material on delivery and therefore has to transfer title to the enriched uranium back to the other contracting party on completion of the process?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Is the application of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty precluded if the persons or undertakings concerned do not fulfil their duty to notify the Euratom Supply Agency under the second paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty?

                           (b)

                           Can breach of the duty to notify the Euratom Supply Agency under the second paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty be remedied by the persons or undertakings concerned subsequently fulfilling their duty to notify or by the Agency subsequently becoming cognisant in some other way?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Is an agreement or contract within the meaning of Article 73 of the EAEC Treaty invalid if the contracting parties do not obtain the prior consent of the European Commission required thereunder?

                           (b)

                           If so, can the invalidity of the transaction be remedied by the persons or undertakings concerned subsequently obtaining such consent or by the institutions of the Euratom Community failing to take action after becoming cognisant in some other way?

               6.

                           (a)

                           Is the disposal of materials within the meaning of Article 57 (1) of the EAEC Treaty prohibited if the producer does not fulfil his obligation to make an offer to the Euratom Supply Agency under the second sentence of Article 57 (2) of the EAEC Treaty?

                           (b)

                           Can breach of the duty to offer materials to the Euratom Supply Agency under the second sentence of Article 57 (2) of the EAEC Treaty be remedied by the producer subsequently fulfilling his duty to make an offer or by the Agency subsequently becoming cognisant in some other way and not exercising its right of option?

               7.

               Does the concept of production in Article 86 of the EAEC Treaty also encompass the enrichment of uranium?

               8.

               Are uranium and light-enriched uranium ‘source materials’ within the meaning of the last phrase of Article 197 (1) of the EAEC Treaty?

               9.

                           (a)

                           Can civil-law title under Paragraph 903 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, hereinafter the ‘BGB’) be acquired and transferred in respect of materials that have become the property of the Euratom Community under the first sentence of Article 86 of the EAEC Treaty?

                           (b)

                           Does the unlimited right of use and consumption afforded to holders of rights under Article 87 of the EAEC Treaty exist as a property or quasi-property interest sui generis alongside rights in rem under the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch of the Federal Republic of Germany?

               10.

               Does an undertaking pursue any of its activities in the territories of the Member States of the Euratom Community within the meaning of Article 196 (b) of the EAEC Treaty if it acquires or disposes of enriched uranium stored there?

               11.

               Does Article 73 of the EAEC Treaty also apply mutatis mutandis to agreements concerning enriched uranium stored within the territory of the Euratom Community where all of the parties are nationals of third States?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 1997 in Case C-329/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 92/43/EEC)

text:
No C 252/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       exhibits the essential characteristics of VAT. That will
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                    he the case if it is generally applicable, if it is
                                                                           proportional to the price of the services, if it is
                        of 26 June 1997                                    charged at each stage of the production and
                                                                           distribution process and if it is imposed on the added
in Joined Cases C-370/95 , C-371/95 and C-372/95                           value of the services.
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Nacional ): Careda SA, Federación Nacional de Operado
res de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar (Femara), Asocia               (') OJNoC 16,20 . 1 . 1996 .
ción Española de Empresarios de Máquinas Recreativas
     (Facomare ) v. Administración General del Estado (')
(Tax on the use of gaming machines — Turnover tax —
                   Passing on to consumers)
                         ( 971C 252/ 18 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                of 26 June 1997
                                                                            in Case C-329/96: Commission of the European
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     Communities v. Hellenic Republic (')
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
                                                                                Directive 92/43/EEC)
In Joined Cases C-370/95, C-371 /95 and C-372/95 :
references to the Court under Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty                                    ( 97/C 252/19 )
from the Audiencia Nacional ( Spain ) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                   (Language of the case: Greek)
between Careda SA ( C-370/95 ), Federation Nacional de
Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar (Femara )
( C-371 /95 ), Asociacion Española de Empresarios de                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Máquinas Recreativas ( Facomare ) ( C-372/95 ) and                              published in the European Court Reports)
Administration       General    des    Estado    —     on   the
interpretation of Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                 In Case C-329/96 : Commission of the European
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                Communities (Agent: Maria Condou Durande ) v. Hellenic
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                    Republic (Agents: Evi Skandalou and Nana Daphniou ) —
assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court          application for a declaration that, by failing, within the
( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,              prescribed period, to adopt and/or notify to the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward,                Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges,                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/
Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar: H. A. Rühl,                   43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar has given a                habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( OJ No L 206, 22 . 7.
judgment on 26 June 1997, in which it has ruled:                      1992, p. 7), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                      obligations under the EC Treaty and that Directive — the
                                                                      Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
1 . Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC              Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann
     of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of               ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann, Judges; F. G.
     the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                   Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of              judgment on 26 June 1997, in which it:
     assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that, in
     order for a tax to be characterized as a turnover tax, it
     is not necessary for the relevant national legislation           1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     expressly to provide that it may be passed on to the                  period the laws, regulations and administrative
     consumer.                                                             provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                           92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                           natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the
2 . Article 33 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC is to be                  Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tax to be                under Article 23 thereof;
     characterized as a turnover tax, it is not necessary for
     the passing on of the tax to the consumer to be
     recorded in an invoice or other document serving as              2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     invoice. For the purposes of the application of this
     provision, it is in any event for the national court to          O OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996.
     establish whether the tax at issue is capable of being
     charged on the movement of goods and services in a
     manner comparable to VAT, by examining whether it


title: Case T-336/03: Action brought on 1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert René S. à r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
3.4.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/27
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
      Commission.                                                         sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      partial rejection of the application
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.                                                    Appeal:                       in respect of goods and services in
                                                                                Classes 9 and 35. For the rest,
                                                                                dismissal of the appeal lodged by
                                                                                the applicant
                                                                          Grounds of claim:             —     The trade mark opposed is a
                                                                                well-known mark;
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert
René S. à r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                              —     The trade mark opposed is
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                            also       protected   against
                                                                                exploitation outside the area
                                                                                of similarity in respect of
                         (Case T-336/03)                                                                      goods and services;
                          (2004/C 85/53)                                                                —     There is a significant simi-
                                                                                larity between the marks.
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert René S. à r.l., of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat. A further party to the                                        (Case T-9/04)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Orange A/S, of
Copenhagen.                                                                                (2004/C 85/54)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the decision adopted on 14 July 2003 by the
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      No R 559/2002-4;                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                  cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
Applicant for the Com-         Orange A/S                                       his request;
munity trade mark:
                                                                          —     Declare that on 29 October 2001, the applicant, then in
The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘MOBILIX’ for                    the service of the Angola Delegation, was the victim of
mark applied for:              goods and services in Classes 9,                 an accident at work, which occurred therein;
                               16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 — Appli-
                               cation No 671 396                          —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
ings:
Trade-mark right               the national verbal and Com-               The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to treat
opposed:                       munity mark ‘OBELIX’ for goods             as an accident at work, with the consequential benefits
                               and services in, inter alia, Class-        provided for in the Staff Regulations in relation to insurance
                               es 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42                against risks of occupational accidents and diseases, the


title: Case T-113/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-77/11, Van Neyghem v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/19

         Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-77/11, Van Neyghem v Council
   (Case T-113/13 P)
   2013/C 147/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Tienen, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment in Case F-77/11 Kris Van Neyghem v Council;

               —

               annul the decision of 1 October 2010 refusing to promote the appellant and upheld the claim for damages;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision if necessary;

               —

               order to defendant to pay the costs including all the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a breach of the duty to state reasons, as the CST held that the decision refusing to promote the person concerned could be reasoned at the stage of the answer to the complaint whereas the reasoning should already have been set out in the decision refusing promotion in so far as that decision was adopted under article 266 TFEU implementing the judgment in case F-53/08 Bouillez and Others v Council [2010] ECR I-0000 and not in accordance with article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second pleas in law alleging an error of law and an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the relevant case-law, as the CST did not base its decision either on the operative part or on the grounds for its judgment in case F-53/08 in order to establish whether that judgment had been correctly implemented.


title: Case T-162/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/37

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission
   (Case T-162/07)
   (2007/C 155/68)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia (Moskhato, Greece) (represented by: N. Skandamis, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by a series of unlawful acts and omissions, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities have infringed the fundamental Community law principles of freedom of movement, economic freedom, proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations and provision of effective legal protection in connection with fishing activities in a zone contiguous to a third country (Tunisia) and the transport of fishing catches made in the Community customs territory through the territory of that third country, which is associated to the Community, under customs supervision (in transit);

               —

               an order that the Community institutions pay the applicant company an amount of 23 608,551 dinars and an amount (EUR 188 583,18 + 10 806 323,44 + 1 000 000 = EUR 11 994 906,62 as compensation pursuant to Articles 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant maintains that it has suffered economic damage because it was unable to import into the customs territory of the Community products of Community origin resulting from its business activities because of a series of unlawful acts and conduct on the part of the Community institutions, that is to say, of:

               (a)

               the European Commission, on the ground that it adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), which requires presentation of Community Customs Document T2M completed in its entirety as the sole proof of origin of Community catches substantiating the right to free movement;

               (b)

               the European Commission, which conducted on behalf of the Community the negotiations with Tunisia for setting up the Association Agreement, and the Council of the European Union, which ratified that Agreement, on the ground that they failed to ensure that catches of Community origin resulting from Community fishing activities outside the territorial waters of Tunisia would not be deprived of the right to free movement;

               (c)

               the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, on the ground that although they are members of the body competent to amend the Agreement, they failed, in the applicant's view, to ensure that provision was made for regulating the question of the above-mentioned specific category of fish, even though they were aware of the problem that had arisen;

               (d)

               the European Commission, on the ground that it omitted to exercise the necessary supervision over the Greek authorities as requested by the company.

         Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the above acts and omissions infringe higher-ranking rules of law which have been laid down for the protection of individuals as follows:

               (a)

               the right to free movement of goods, in the exercise of which administrative formalities are of a procedural not substantive nature;

               (b)

               the right of commercial freedom, the essence of which is affected by the prohibition on alternative proof of origin;

               (c)

               the principle of proportionality, which is not compatible with the exclusion of any means of proof of origin other than the T2M;

               (d)

               the principle of protection of legitimate expectations since, although the company conducted itself as a prudent observer of the market, it suffered serious damage by reason of the fact that it availed itself of its rights under Community law:

               (e)

               the principle of effective legal protection, which is contrary to the ‘denial of justice’ which the company encountered on the part of the Greek, Tunisian and Community authorities.

         In addition to the value of the compensation sought, the applicant points out that the unusual and special character of the harm it has sustained allows reparation of the above damage and considers that the circumstances in this case warrant the Community being held liable in the absence of fault.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case C-249/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Pau (France) lodged on 6 May 2013 — Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Pau (France) lodged on 6 May 2013 — Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques
   (Case C-249/13)
   2013/C 189/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Pau

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Khaled Boudjlida

      Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned? In particular, does that right include the right to be put in a position to analyse the information relied on against him as regards his right of residence, to express his point of view, in writing or orally, with a sufficient period of reflection, and to enjoy the assistance of counsel of his own choosing?

               2.

               If necessary, must the extent of that right be adjusted or limited in view of the general interest objective of the return policy set out in Directive 2008/115? (1)

               3.

               If so, what adjustments or limitations must be made, and on the basis of what criteria should they be established?

      (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case T-271/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM — British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg — Earlier national word mark JAN III SOBIESKI and earlier national figurative mark JAN III Sobieski — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the application fee or to do so by bank transfer within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the action to be unfounded — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 — Application for restitutio in integrum — Lack of exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances — Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM — British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg)
   (Case T-271/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg - Earlier national word mark JAN III SOBIESKI and earlier national figurative mark JAN III Sobieski - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the application fee or to do so by bank transfer within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the action to be unfounded - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 - Application for restitutio in integrum - Lack of exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/71
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: U. Fitzner and U.H. Fitzner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. (Augustów, Poland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2009 (Case R 771/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. and Romuald Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-361/02: Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Deutsche Bahn AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.2.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/33
accorded the Italian postal operator preferential treatment vis-            The applicant’s other pleas in law and arguments are the same
à-vis the applicants, which are in competition with it in the               as those set out in Case T-351/02.
very sector of postal services which have been opened up to
competition.
( 1) OJ L 282, 19.10.2002, p. 29.
( 2) Commission Decision on measures implemented by the Federal
     Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ L 247, 14.9.2002,
     p. 27).
                                                                            Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook
                                                                            Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (OHIM)
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Deutsche Bahn
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-                                                  (Case T-362/02)
                                  ties
                                                                                (2003/C 44/64)
                            (Case T-361/02)
                            (2003/C 44/63)                                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by
European Communities on 5 December 2002 by Deutsche                         Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-
Bahn AG, Berlin, Germany, represented by M. Schütte, lawyer,                resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      find that the Commission infringed its obligations under
       Article 87 and Article 88(1) EC in failing to adopt a                —    declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
       decision on the matters submitted to it by the applicant                  the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)
       in its complaint of 5 July 2002, and in any event, in                     and/or Article 42(2) and (3) thereof, the decision of the
       failing to initiate an investigation of State aid;                        First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 30 September
                                                                                2002 in case No R 16/2000-1, inasmuch as it declares
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    that the opponent has failed to prove genuine use in the
                                                                                Community of the Spanish trade mark No 88222 to
                                                                                distinguish ready-to-wear and other items of clothing in
                                                                                Class 25 during the five years preceding the publication
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  of the application for a Community trade mark;
The action has the same origin as that in Case T-351/02                     —    annul that decision in its entirety;
(Deutsche Bahn v Commission).
                                                                            —    agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
                                                                                assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition
In the present action the applicant submits that the Com-                        to registration of Community trade mark No 278028 is
mission infringed its obligations under Article 87 and
                                                                                appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should
Article 88(1) EC because, despite having been called upon to                     declare that Community trade mark No 278028 is
act in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 232 EC,                     refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
it failed to investigate the compatibility of Paragraph 4(1),
                                                                                First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;
Head 3(a), of the German Law on the taxation on mineral oil
with the State-aid provisions of the EC Treaty and to adopt a
binding decision in that regard. No such decision can be                    —    order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
discerned in the Commission’s letter of 21 September 2002                        vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those
and the Commission’s failure to act is not justified by objective                incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
reasons.                                                                         and appeal proceedings.


title: Case C-199/01 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by IPK München GmbH against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK München GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 212/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by IPK München GmbH                             before the Court of First Instance, was concerned only
against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the                         with the question whether the Commission could estab-
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                           lish that the appellant was in a position to carry out the
European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK                             project satisfactorily, despite the unlawful interventions
München GmbH and the Commission of the European                               of DG XXIII officials. The Court of First Instance erred in
                         Communities                                          law by failing to recognise that.
                       (Case C-199/01 P)
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
                                                                        (2) [1999] ECR I-6795.
                        (2001/C 212/19)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK
München GmbH and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by IPK München
GmbH, represented by H.J. Prieß, Rechtsanwalt.                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Oberste Ger-
                                                                        ichtshof, of 26 April 2001, in the Case of Maria Walcher
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen
                                                                                Steiermark
1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 (1) in so far as it is
      assumed from paragraph 34 of that judgment onwards                                          (Case C-201/01)
      that points 6 to 12 of the European Commission’s letter
      of 30 November 1993, to which the Decision of the
      European Commission of 3 August 1994 refers, do not                                        (2001/C 212/20)
      belong to the grounds for the contested decision of
      3 August 1994;                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-             of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on 15 May
      ings.                                                             2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria Walcher
                                                                        against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steier-
                                                                        mark on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        1.    Is it contrary to the objectives of Council Directive
                                                                              80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approxi-
—     Misidentification of the object in dispute: Even for the
                                                                              mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      Court, the scope of the dispute is bindingly defined by
                                                                              protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of
      the application. The application sought the annulment of
                                                                              their employer if, on account of the principles also applied
      the contested decision in its entirety without limitation.
                                                                              by the Austrian courts on loans made in substitution for
      The contested decision does not contain a limitation to
                                                                              share capital, a shareholder who has no controlling
      points 1 to 6 of the letter of 30 November 1993.
                                                                              influence on the company loses his entitlement to an
      However, the Court of First Instance erroneously proceed-
                                                                              insolvency guarantee payment where, in his capacity as
      ed on the basis that that letter could be divided into two
                                                                              an employee of the company, he does not, after the onset
      parts. Not even the Commission argued at any point that
                                                                              of creditunworthiness which was apparent to him, make
      points 6 to 12 of the letter did not form part of the
                                                                              any serious demand for payment of current wages in
      subject-matter of the dispute, and it became substantively
                                                                              arrears for more than 60 days and/or does not resign
      involved with the applicant’s argument concerning
                                                                              early on the ground that his wages are withheld?
      points 6 to 12. The misidentification of the subject-
      matter of the dispute by the Court of First Instance leads
                                                                        2.    Does this loss of entitlement extend to all unpaid claims
      to a reduction of the legal protection sought by the
                                                                              under the employment relationship or only to those
      applicant;
                                                                              arisen after the fictitious point in time at which an
—     Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 253                  employee who was not a shareholder would, on the
      EC);                                                                    ground that his wages were withheld, have handed in his
                                                                              notice of resignation from the employment relationship?
—     Infringement of the binding authority of the judgment of
      the Court of Justice in Case C-433/97 P (2), referring the
      matter back to the Court of First Instance: In its judgment,      (1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.
      the Court of Justice, like the First Chamber of the Court
      of First Instance before it, did not in any way limit the
      subject-matter of the dispute. The reference back by the
      Court of Justice, and thus the subsequent proceedings


title: Case T-468/09: Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/68

         Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB
   (Case T-468/09) (1)

   2013/C 26/134
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-298/11: Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ghost Brand v OHIM — Procter & Gamble International Operations (GHOST)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/27

         Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ghost Brand v OHIM — Procter & Gamble International Operations (GHOST)
   (Case T-298/11)
   2011/C 238/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ghost Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Caddick, QC)

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

      The Appellant to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order that transfer of ownership in respect of Community Trade Mark Registration No 000282350 ‘GHOST’ to Procter & Gamble International Operations S.A. should be recorded and published only in respect of ‘cosmetics’, and that ownership of the registration in relation to all goods in class 25, and ‘soaps, perfumery, essential oils, hair lotions’ in class 3 should remain in the name of Ghost Brand Limited.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for transfer of ownership has been made: The word mark ‘GHOST’, for goods in class 3 (‘soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions’) — Community trade mark registration No 282350

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for the transfer of ownership of the Community trade mark: The Appellant to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Department for Designs and Register: Rejected the application for a partial transfer of ownership

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and decided that the Department for Designs and Register shall record and publish the transfer of ownership

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances three pleas in law, mainly that: (i) the Second Board of Appeal erred in not notifying the applicant of the appeal proceedings, or the appeal decision; (ii) the Second Board of Appeal was not provided with all of the necessary information, and the appellant’s appeal was based on deception; and, (iii) the appellant acted in bad faith in appealing the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.


title: Case C-372/08 P: Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2008 in Case T-172/07 Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/25

         Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2008 in Case T-172/07 Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-372/08 P)
   (2008/C 285/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd (represented by: G. Hogan SC, N. Travers BL, T. O'Sullivan BL, D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in its entirety;

               —

               remit the case to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the substance of the application, the balance of the objection of inadmissibility of the Commission of 7 September 2007 to be reserved for the said decision on the merits;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the appellants in respect of this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants base this appeal on three alleged infringements of Community law made in the order under appeal. The appellants submit that the Court of First Instance has, firstly, misconstrued Article 20 of Regulation No 2371/2002 (1) and, in particular, the scope of the residual powers of Member States under Article 20(3) thereof. Secondly, it has misconstrued Article 20(5) in relying upon the possibility of inter-Member State quota exchanges to exclude direct concern for the appellants. Lastly, it has erroneously ignored the fact that the appellants are directly concerned, as a closed group of individuals, by the contested regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358, p. 59).


title: Case C-9/13: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, interveners: Kingdom of Belgium and Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, interveners: Kingdom of Belgium and Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-9/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/26
   Language of the case: Slovenian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-10/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Inditex and Naviera Nebulosa de Omega v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/51

         Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Inditex and Naviera Nebulosa de Omega v Commission
   (Case T-10/14)
   2014/C 52/99
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) and Naviera Nebulosa de Omega, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case F-42/10: Action brought on 3 June 2010 — Skareby v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/55

         Action brought on 3 June 2010 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-42/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/89
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the Decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim that she was subjected to and experienced psychological harassment during the years she spent at the Regionalised Delegation of the Commission in Kyrgyzstan.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Ask the Commission to produce the report of IDOC, with supporting evidence;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2009 and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal against the order of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1998 in Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v. Commission of the European Communities (Case C-459/98 P)

text:
C 48/18               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Case T-2/95 between Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques and           Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Isabel Martínez
the Council of the European Union, supported by the                 del Peral Cagigal against the order of the First Chamber of
Commission of the European Communities, PeÂchiney                   the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1998 in Case
EÂlectromeÂtallurgie and the Chambre Syndicale de                   T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v.
l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de l'EÂlectrochimie, was brought                   Commission of the European Communities
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                  (Case C-459/98 P)
on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des Poudres
SpheÂriques, represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of the Paris                                  (1999/C 48/29)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                    An appeal against the order made on 14 October 1998 by
                                                                    the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         European Communities in Case T-224/97 between Isabel
                                                                    Martínez del Peral Cagigal and Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities was brought before the Court of
Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First            Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
     Instance on 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 and itself          1998 by Isabel Martínez del Peral, represented by Antonio
     give final judgment in the case;                               Creus and BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, with an address for
                                                                    service at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78
                                                                    Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels.
Ð order the Council and all the interveners to pay the
     costs of the proceedings for interim measures and on
     the substance of the case before the Court of First            The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     Instance, together with the costs of the present
     proceedings.
                                                                    Ð allow this case to proceed and accordingly:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        14 October 1998 in case T-224/97 on the grounds
The judgment of the Court of First Instance disregards                  stated;
Articles 174 and 176 of the EC Treaty and Articles 7(1)
and (9) and 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88
                                                                    Ð give judgment itself on the basis of the submissions of
of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or
                                                                        the appellant in her initial application and, in
subsidised imports from countries not members of the
                                                                        particular:
European Economic Community (1).
                                                                        Ð declare admissible the application lodged by the
Following the annulment, by judgment of the Court of                        appellant, which seeks review of her situation
Justice of 11 June 1992 in Case C-358/89 Extramet v.                        under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, with a
Council [1992] ECR I-3813, of an initial regulation                         view to possible reclassification;
imposing an anti-dumping duty, the institutions were
under an obligation to take the requisite steps to comply               Ð annul the negative decision of 24 October 1996
with that judgment. The Court of First Instance erred in                    rejecting the appellant's request that an appraisal
finding that it was open to the Commission, to that end,                    be undertaken with a view to the possible
to decide to carry out a fresh investigation involving,                     application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
moreover, a different reference period.                                     Regulations; and, so far as necessary, annul the
                                                                            explicit decision of refusal adopted by the
                                                                            Commission on 29 April 1997 in response to the
The judgment of the Court of First Instance disregards the                  appellant's complaint;
fundamental principle of respect for the right to a fair
hearing and the provisions of Articles 7(4) and 8(3) of the
aforementioned Council Regulation.                                      Ð declare that the appellant is entitled to have
                                                                            her initial classification reviewed, with a view
                                                                            to possible reclassification, with financial
The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the                     consequences as from 5 October 1995.
numerous irregularities found to have occurred in the
course of the administrative procedure, in particular the
                                                                    4. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the
delayed communication of a note submitted by PEM and
                                                                        proceedings at both instances.
the lack of access, in the form of a non-confidential
summary, to certain documents, did not affect the
appellant's procedural rights.                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
                                                                    Ð Breach of Community law: the order is not consistent
                                                                        with the case-law of the ECJ and CFI concerning
                                                                        recommencement of the period for instituting
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/19
     proceedings because of the emergence of new                    Ð order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
     circumstances, according to which an internal
     Commission decision changing the criteria for the
     classification of officials must be regarded as a              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     supervening event.
Ð Infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, under               Article 12(1) of the directive provides that the Member
     which the Commission should have taken all the steps           States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and
     necessary to comply with the judgment of the CFI in            administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
     Alexopolou (1).                                                directive not later than 21 November 1996.
Ð Breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment            The Republic of Austria has not adopted the necessary
     embodied in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and          measures within that deadline.
     upheld in the case-law of the ECJ and CFI.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.
Ð Infringement of Community law: the order is not
     consistent with the duty of assistance and protection
     laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
Ð The contested order of the CFI contains a defective
     statement of reasons, in that it does not sufficiently         Action brought on 21 December 1998 (lodged on
     explain why the internal Commission decision of                18 December 1998) by the Commission of the European
     7 February 1996 cannot be regarded as a supervening                     Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     event.
                                                                                (Case C-470/98)
( ) Case T-17/95 ECR-SC [1995] II-683.
 1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/31)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 21 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 December 1998 by the Commission                Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
of the European Communities against the Republic of                 its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                            Austria                                 Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                    its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
                       (Case C-461/98)
                        (1999/C 48/30)
                                                                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             Ð declare that, by failing, except as regards fresh meat
on 16 December 1998 by the Commission of the                             and poultrymeat, to take the necessary measures to
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,                       ensure that the costs of the veterinary and
Legal Adviser, and Karin Schreyer, a national civil servant              administrative checks in respect of products of
on secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an                 agricultural origin from third countries, required
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos                under Articles 3(ii) and 4 of Council Directive
Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                       90/675/EEC (1), are met by the consignor, the
                                                                         consignee or their agent, without reimbursement by
                                                                         the State, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                    Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     and administrative measures necessary in order
     to comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of
     21 November 1994 esetablishing the fundamental
     principles governing the investigation of civil aviation       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     accidents and incidents (1), alternatively by failing to
     communicate those measures to the Commission, the
     Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty directives are binding
     under that directive;                                          upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved.


title: Case T-443/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  — El Corte Inglés S.A. v OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/24

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 — El Corte Inglés S.A. v OHIM
   (Case T-443/05)
   (2006/C 74/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés S.A. (Madrid) (represented by: Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Juan Bolaños Sabri
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal, of 21 September 2005, in Case R 1191/2004-1, in so far as, by upholding the application by the applicant for the Community mark, that decision provides the basis for the future grant of Community trade mark No 2.456.242 ‘PRAÑAM DISEÑO ORIGINAL JUAN BOLAÑOS’, in Class 25;

               —

               refuse registration of the Community trade mark No 2.456.242 ‘PRAÑAM DISEÑO ORIGINAL JUAN BOLAÑOS’, Class 25;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Juan Bolaños Sabri.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘PIRAÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños’ (Application No 2.456.242) for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 25.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘PIRANHA’ for goods in Classes 25 (No 790.520) and 18 (No 2.116.007).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition upheld in part, the application for registration for goods in Class 25 being rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the decision appealed was annulled and the opposition set aside in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-26/07: Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/24

         Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-26/07)
   (2007/C 56/46)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kontou and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/80 into domestic law expired on 1 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15.